Finding New Avenues for Russian Justice Amidst the Loss of European Court Access

Karinna Moskalenko is a distinguished Russian human rights attorney recognized for her advocacy on behalf of journalists, activists, and opposition figures.

With extensive experience spanning several decades working alongside international human rights organizations, she is acclaimed for her commitment to defending freedom of speech and civil rights.

In 2001, Moskalenko made history by becoming the first Russian lawyer to successfully present a case at the European Court of Human Rights. Dedicated to enhancing the protection of human rights in Russia, she established the Center of Assistance to International Protection in Moscow in 1994. Additionally, from 1999 to 2007, she was a member of the Expert Council for the Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia.

Since 2024, she has been leading the UN Group of Independent Experts on the Human Rights Situation in Belarus.

The Moscow Times interviewed Moskalenko regarding the current international mechanisms available to Russian citizens and her ongoing human rights efforts in Belarus.

This interview has been condensed for brevity and clarity.

The Moscow Times: How can Russians safeguard their rights on an international level in 2025?

Karinna Moskalenko: The withdrawal of Russia from the Council of Europe represents a significant setback for the nation—particularly the loss of a crucial mechanism like the European Court of Human Rights. For over twenty years, Russians had come to rely on the idea that when justice was elusive at home, they could turn to an international court whose decisions were binding on Russia. The presence of this mechanism greatly bolstered human rights and the rule of law within the country.

The process was straightforward: individuals would submit complaints to the European Court, which would then issue rulings that were obligatory for Russia, enabling changes to be made to past verdicts, legal amendments, and shifts in judicial practices at the national level. This system was effective and evolved positively over time. Our engagement began in 1998 when Russia fell under the jurisdiction of the European Court. We only ceased this involvement recently, as violations committed by Russian authorities prior to September 16, 2022, still fall under the Court’s jurisdiction.

Currently, many Russians feel they have no alternative international judicial body available. However, they do have access to a similar quasi-judicial mechanism known as the UN Human Rights Committee. Russians can file grievances through a similar process and receive international protection. This option is not widely known, and many underestimate it, often due to the misconception that while the European Court’s decisions are binding, those of the Human Rights Committee are mere recommendations. This is erroneous—far from being insignificant, their decisions carry considerable weight.

Since January 1, 1992, Russia has been subject to the UN Human Rights Committee’s jurisdiction. To date, complaints against Russia under international law are continually reviewed. The Committee’s rulings hold substantial import.

In recent years, we haven’t utilized these complaints extensively, primarily because the European Court’s process became so standardized—and it provided financial restitution. The Human Rights Committee similarly recognizes violations but leaves it to the state to decide on the compensation, without stating specific amounts.

Thus, in recent times, the Human Rights Committee has been underutilized; approaching the European Court appeared simpler. However, currently, Russians have no other recourse. If they cannot find justice domestically and their fundamental rights—protected by both the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—have been violated, they still possess the right to appeal. The state is obligated to accept the Committee’s jurisdiction for such appeals.

Do cases take longer with the Human Rights Committee compared to the European Court? It varies, but the Committee still offers a legitimate avenue for seeking justice on an international scale. This applies not only to Russian citizens but to anyone under Russian jurisdiction.

Many colleagues in the legal profession contend that the UN Human Rights Committee lacks effectiveness, pointing out Russia’s previous reluctance to adhere even to the European Court’s rulings. Nevertheless, those decisions were typically implemented. Now, we must work towards making the UN mechanism functional. The UN is the last remaining international platform for Russia, indicating some level of interest from Russian authorities as well. We’ve already observed Russian officials responding to certain complaints. As long as the agreements granting Russia involvement in these mechanisms haven’t been rescinded, Russia remains part of the system. We are committed to ensuring adherence to the decisions. Numerous mechanisms and forms of appeal exist to restore violated rights, and these cannot be overlooked. We must assert our rights and strive for their restoration. Therefore, I firmly believe the international legal pathway is still open for Russia.

MT: How feasible is it today to hold those accountable for human rights abuses, and what major challenges do you see?

KM: There is an increasing emphasis at the international level—including within the United Nations—on not only identifying and documenting human rights abuses and acts classified as crimes against humanity but also ensuring accountability for the perpetrators. Various mechanisms are being developed for this purpose.

As the head of the UN Group of Independent Experts on the Human Rights Situation in Belarus, I can cite our work as an example.

What do we do? We establish facts, gather documents, and collect evidence to determine how to hold those responsible for human rights violations—or violations qualifying as crimes against humanity—accountable. This is a comprehensive initiative that did not begin this year. Previously, a similar expert group operated under the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, producing reports and analyzing findings.

Last year, a new independent mandate was established through a resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. This approach focuses more on state responsibility, especially in cases shown to be systematic and widespread—characteristics of crimes against humanity—if linked to official state policy, or unlawful policy specifically.

We are currently in the process of identifying those responsible and documenting further violations occurring since May 2020 and continuing to this day. Our hope is to make headway in the coming year. In principle, these mandates can extend for up to six years, although the Human Rights Council must renew this vote annually.

One of our mandate’s key tasks is to establish contact with, engage, and potentially cooperate with the authorities of the country in question—in this case, Belarus.

In September, I addressed a Human Rights Council session in Russian, as Belarusian representatives always communicate in that language. I wanted to demonstrate that, from the esteemed platform of the UN, we share a common language.

I invited the Belarusian authorities to collaborate—perhaps starting with conferences and roundtables to discuss matters within our mandate. We extended our hand, providing them with a valuable opportunity, but they did not respond. They even neglect routine inquiries that require government replies, which does not speak well for them.

For example, we inquired about several documented deaths in custody. Every state bears the obligation to protect the right to life—the foundational principle of international law. We requested clarification on the causes of death, the investigation process, and the establishment of responsibility. Some cases might be explainable, yet they did not even acknowledge this fundamental query.

Our goal is to initiate a dialogue with the Belarusian authorities. Even their allies at the UN Human Rights Council recognize this dialogue as critical. Without it, the process stagnates: we present evidence, they deny it, and nothing progresses. Therefore, it is vital for them to listen to us, provide our mission with pertinent information, and clarify their actions. By choosing not to engage, they forego a significant opportunity, which is indeed unfortunate.