?
Балансируя между прогрессом и регрессом: исполнение решений договорных органов ООН по правам человека в Российской Федерации
This article is aimed at determining the extent to which the decisions of the UN human rights treaty-based bodies against Russia can be enforced at the current time. The author traces the evolution of approaches of judicial practice, which have been developed primarily by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — Constitutional Court) and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — Supreme Court) on the issue of the legal consequences of the decisions rendered by the UN human rights quasi-judicial bodies in relation to Russia using the examples of three possible scenarios: first, the resumption of the applicant’s case due to new circumstances (the Khoroshenko and the Medvedeva cases); second, the review of the applicant’s case in a supervisory procedure (the Kostin and the Mamonov cases); and third, the reparation of the harm caused to the applicant (the Kirsanov and the Sotnik cases). This study also assesses the possibility of obeying the interim measures of the UN Human Rights Committee (hereinafter — HRC, Committee) in light of the recent position of the Supreme Court of April 2025. The author concludes that the possibilities for resuming criminal proceedings due to new circumstances or their review in a supervisory procedure are extremely limited. It appears that the resumption of civil proceedings due to new circumstances is unlikely because of certain changes in Russian legislation. Since the procedure for enforcing the decisions of the UN human rights treaty-based bodies is not regulated at the legislative level in the Russian Federation, the author is convinced that in the near future, compliance with decisions of such bodies will depend entirely on the discretion of courts and prosecutor’s offices.