The judgment awarding Dmitriy Andronov, a minor victim, compensation of moral damages entered into force.
Let us remind you that Mr.Andronov claims that he was battered by police officers and prosecution officers in Pavlovo. The teenager was unlawfully kept in the pre-trial detention centre of Nizhny Novgorod for more than 20 hours, because the detention centre authorities ignored the Nizhny Novgorod Court verdict demanding his prompt release. Dmitriy was released only after the Committee against Torture interfered.
Having investigated into the application of the Committee against Torture, the Prosecutor’s office found no violation of Dmitriy Andronov’s rights. The court, however, took the victim’s stand and declared that human rights under article 5 of the European Convention were violated.
It should be noted that a serious problem has emerged in the region recently, it is connected to the fact that the Prosecutor’s office and the court make opposite conclusions while judging in accordance with the same legislation.
To be more precise, the Prosecutor’s office virtually ignores international law in the process of decision-making, thus violating articles 15, 17, 18 of the Rf Constitution. When delivering judgments, courts, on the contrary, alongside Russian criminal and procedural legislation, actively apply international law which under article 15 of the RF Constitution is part of Russian law. Unfortunately, this tendency is contrary to the prosecutor’s office point of view. It seems that the Prosecutor’s office thinks that international law is something abstract and not applicable to Russian reality. And that is why the Prosecutor’s office staff does not use the European Convention and UN Beijing Rules that are incomprehensible to them.
The situation with the application of Ms. Marina Andronova, Dmitriy’s mother, is a characteristic example. When her son was released she sued the Nizhny Novgorod department of the RF Finance Ministry for compensation of moral damages to her son. The claim was satisfied by the Sovietsky district court of Nizhny Novgorod. Thus the court provided a possibility for the minor Dmitriy to implement his right for a fair compensation at the national level and stopped advancement of the case towards the European Court.
We offer your attention the following documents:
Ruling of the civil division of the Nizhny Novgorod regional court under the cassation appeal of the local department of the RF Finance Ministry against the judgment of the Sovietsky district court under the suit initiated by Marina Andronova.
These documents demonstrate opposite approaches of the court and Prosecutor’s office to laws and legal norms. At the same time they demonstrate that the prosecutor’s office is not willing to base its decisions on international law which constitutes an integral part of Russian law. You can read and compare and draw your conclusions. As it is widely known, recently the European Court of Human Rights had to make its decision, quite an unpleasant one, on a similar case that was also connected with the lack of professionalism shown by the Nizhny Novgorod Prosecutor’s office.
You may remember that art. 22 of the RF Constitution says: “Ever citizen has a right to personal freedom and inviolability. Arrest and detention should be effected subject to a prior court judgment. Until the court judgment is obtained citizens can not be detained for a period longer than 48 hours.” Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says: «Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save … in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law».