Zakharova Blasts ECHR’s Conclusions On Litvinenko Murder Case

The judgement delivered by the ECHR on September 21 of this year on the application of the widow of Alexander Litvinenko, Carter v. Russia, has raised quite a few questions not only on the merits of the conclusions drawn by this international body but also regarding the Court procedure and the approaches taken by the Court, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing on Tuesday.

This is yet further evidence of the willingness of the ECHR, which is positioning itself as an international judicial authority, to play a political role and make its contribution to cultivating an atmosphere of Russophobia that has become so popular in some Western countries. "We cannot understand the position of the Court, which, as a matter of fact, has decided to rubber-stamp the obviously politicised and dubious from a legal viewpoint, to say the least, conclusions of the national judicial body of a Council of Europe member country," Zakharova stressed.   

Putting aside the content of the document and erroneous conclusions by Strasbourg justice one cannot fail to notice the Court’s arbitrary departure from its standard practice of considering individual applications linked to interstate disputes. earlier, the ECHR undertook to not consider cases like this prior to delivering a judgement on the key points of the related interstate lawsuit. 

Maria Zakharova recalled that on February 23, 2021, Ukraine lodged a ninth application [with the ECHR] against Russia in connection with “targeted assassination operations against perceived opponents of the Russian Federation, in Russia and on the territory of other states”. this is how Ukraine formulated its application. since the case of Carter v. Russia falls within the subject of this interstate lawsuit, the inconsistency of the Court looks astonishing – it should have suspended the consideration of the application, as in the case of thousands of other applications related to interstate affairs. putting aside arguments about the relevance of Kiev’s application, including if it is legally warranted, Russia deem it to be unacceptable that the European Court takes different approaches to identical situations.