Arms Exports and the Right to Life: The RWM Italia Case

Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings. Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash. In this section, we summarize the three papers contained in this symposium and their original contributions to these themes. Over the last decade, dozens of countries have erected legal barriers or started vilifying campaigns to stymie the work of NGOs (Buyse, 2018; Chaudhry, 2022). One tactic in this toolkit is the enactment of burdensome regulation on NGOs that receive funds from foreign donors as they allegedly promote foreign agendas (Christensen & Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2021). States that frequently abuse human rights are especially prone to target NGOs that engage in strategic litigation (Hillebrecht, 2019). Most NGOs depend on foreign funding, and NGOs that litigate international cases fall disproportionately in this category, but do funders affect the selection of cases? In “Foreign Agents or Agents of Justice? Private Foundations, NGO Backlash, and International Human Rights Litigation,” Heidi Haddad and Lisa Sundstrom examine the extent to which Western donors, particularly private foundations, have encouraged NGOs in Europe to litigate at the ECtHR as a human rights advocacy strategy. They examine overall patterns of donor funding and NGO litigation records, and look in more detail at the case of Russian NGOs' foreign funding and litigation records. The analysis is extremely timely, as the Russian government's criminalization of independent civil society actors, especially in the human rights field, and their accusation that foreign funding turns NGOs into “foreign agents” have been crucial elements of the Russian regime's autocratization. This claim has also provided fuel for Russia's disenchantment with the ECtHR in recent years, contributing to the assessment of many observers that Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine was the last straw in an inevitable collision course leading to its exit from the Council of Europe. Haddad and Sundstrom debunk the idea that foreign donors are pushing NGOs toward strategies of human rights litigation. Instead, they argue, there is more evidence that NGOs themselves promoted the mechanism of international litigation as a strategy that donors later adopted. This article is a poignant reminder of the advocacy tools that Russian human rights activists and citizens have lost as a result of their government's departure from the Council of Europe, including ECtHR jurisdiction. Yet it also provides insight into the likely roles of foreign donors in other country cases where NGOs are using international court litigation as a human rights advocacy strategy, which is often a target of the ire of national governments, as explored in the next article in the symposium. When states attack human rights NGOs within their borders and/or international human rights courts themselves, how does this affect the willingness of those NGOs to take cases to international courts, and the ways in which they do so? De Silva and Plagis ask this question in their article about state backlash against NGOs in the case of Tanzania and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. A fascinating empirical question they pose is: does state backlash against NGOs increase NGO litigation at international courts (to contest state repression at those courts and use international mechanisms when domestic ones are not available), roughly in line with Keck and Sikkink's famous “boomerang pattern” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), or decrease it due to heightened fear and restricted NGO capabilities that state repression creates? Employing a process-tracing analysis of NGOs' involvement in three cases before the African Court at different stages of the Tanzanian government's backlash against the Court, De Silva and Plagis find that “two-level backlash” by states can result in both phenomena, either promoting or deterring NGO legal mobilization at international human rights courts, depending on certain conditions. The three selected cases concerning the death penalty, the rights of persons with albinism, and the rights of pregnant schoolgirls and mothers, which took place at different time periods, demonstrate a number of patterns of state backlash interacting with NGO strategies. The authors find that domestic-level state backlash deterred domestic NGOs from partnering with international NGOs in litigation, but that such backlash, when it repressed domestic political and legal mobilization opportunities, actually encouraged both Tanzanian and international NGOs to turn to the African Court more frequently to seek remedies. International-level backlash in turn only deterred NGOs from international litigation when such backlash consisted of state efforts to restrict NGOs' ability to engage in litigation, and not when the international backlash was in the form of routine noncompliance with African Court rulings. Importantly, the authors find that NGO responses to state backlash were significantly shaped by their degree of legal consciousness and expertise with the rules, proceedings, and workings of the African Court. Those NGOs with less knowledge and experience were more likely to back away from engaging with the Court under the pressure of state backlash. De Silva and Plagis conclude that “NGOs' persistent human rights advocacy in the face of state backlash is a double-edged sword,” in the sense that they may not be deterred by state backlash initially, but there is a danger that their continued determination to engage in international litigation could prompt governments to engage in even more severe forms of backlash, with critical impacts on international courts and already vulnerable human rights defenders. Rights advocates have a growing menu of institutions and courts available to them. How do activists choose at which institution to lodge their cases in a world where legal remedies have diversified, or as some have argued, fragmented (Koskenniemi & Leino, 2002)? In “What Makes an International Institution Work for Labor Activists? Shaping International Law through Strategic Litigation,” Filiz Kahraman goes beyond the tendency of legal mobilization studies to only examine how activists interact with a single court or institution. Instead, Kahraman opens up how rights advocates imagine which institution is most receptive to their claims. Drawing on a comparative interview study of British and Turkish trade union activists and their legal mobilization campaigns at international courts and quasi-judicial institutions like the International Labor Organization (ILO), Kahraman examines how activists first probe and then strategically identify which court or international institution is most susceptible to their primary goals of influencing structural reforms and setting new norms. Through this probing process—or dynamic signaling game between courts and litigants—activists push a court's jurisprudence and case law into new issue areas. For instance, at the ECtHR, Turkish trade unionists challenged domestic courts' ruling that public sector workers did not have the right to establish unions, even though the ECtHR had no established case law on labor rights in 1990s. They won the case, with the ECtHR finding that Turkey violated the right of public sector workers to unionize. These cases not only had an impact within Turkey, but over the next decades, similar cases brought by British unionists would spin off the early precedent set by the Turkish legal mobilization efforts. Kahraman argues that they ultimately pushed the ECtHR to recognize the basic trade union rights as fundamental human rights. Kahraman sheds light on the often hidden strategies behind international litigation. Activists litigate not just for the immediate impact on the current case they work on, but how they envision that all the cases they work on may shape norms and domestic structural reforms further in the future. Whether an institution is perceptive of claims lies in the eye of the beholder. Kahraman finds that besides targeting institutions with high compliance rates, they also take cases to institutions with low rates of compliance, especially “if these institutions have extensive judicial authority to create new international norms.” So, it is not the de jure protection set by an international courts, but rather how activists perceive the juridical responsiveness and judicial authority of courts—or, how judges adopt either an activist approach or restraint in response to incoming cases and how willing states are to implement cases of a court, respectively—that determines why activists select certain courts or quasi-judicial institutions (like the ILO). Kahraman gives us new tools to interpret how activists perceive authority and receptiveness and respond to opportunities. Rather than static external legal remedies, courts and quasi-judicial institutions are opportunity structures that are malleable to the strategic vision of the activist or litigant. The articles in this symposium together reveal a number of key overlapping insights. At the broadest level, they demonstrate that activists' behaviors and strategies influence international courts' jurisprudence, politics within states, and the human rights outcomes of everyday citizens—and these influences have often been hidden in our existing canon of research on international courts. In addition, all of these articles show that, while activists may face challenges in their efforts, often including significant backlash from their home state governments, they also continue to retain significant agency through their creative efforts to develop legal strategies and circumvent state repression. Activists perennially innovate: sparking the ideas that inspire donors who fund them; calculating how to continue their litigation work when government actors threaten them; and taking risks in litigation to push courts to expand how they define human rights. However, along with these uplifting conclusions, there are worrying patterns that demand future research. States are increasingly pushing back against the powers of international courts to bind them to costly measures, and as this symposium has shown, national governments often point to activists as contributors to this “problem” of invasive international human rights standards. A growing body of research has tracked how human rights defenders of all kinds globally are under threat from actors like governments and corporations who disagree with their contentious actions. We need more studies that gather comprehensive data and systematically track these threats, specifically with regard to activists who engage in international human rights litigation. We suspect that such activists are likely disproportionately targeted due to the international visibility of their complaints. We also desperately need research into possible innovative responses to these threats to activists—responses from activists, funders, governments of countries that support human rights, and international courts themselves. Freek van der Vet is a University Researcher at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki and the principal investigator of the Toxic Crimes Project. Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is the director of the ActinCourts network at UBC and conducts research on legal mobilization by Russian activists.

The scientific article examines the activities of the European Court of Human Rights and identifies the significance of the relevant case law of the European Court for the case law of Ukraine. It is noted, that one of the issues, studied within the topic, is the sources and legal framework, which is especially relevant in the adoption of the Law of Ukraine «On Enforcement of Decisions and Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights», according to which courts use the Agreement and case law as a legal source in cases. The activity of the European Court of Human Rights, the role and impact on the judicial system of Ukraine are analyzed, the relevant examples are given. It is concluded, that the implementation of international human rights law into Ukrainian law is a complex procedure that requires special doctrinal consideration, as today Ukrainian citizens are among the most active complainants to the European Court of Human Rights, which indicates a fairly high insecurity by national legal mechanisms. In order to increase the credibility of the judiciary, courts should take into account the European experience, decisions and observations of the Court in their work. The Court's case law is said to play an important role in the judicial reform process as it approaches the European legal framework for human rights standards in Europe. The current law cannot fully protect a person or build justice if it is not applied properly. Based on existing ECtHR rulings, judges can accurately understand the rule of law and apply it properly, which will help improve human rights, accurate understanding and implementation of the Agreement on Ukraine. Based on the study, it was concluded, that it is necessary and appropriate to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as in this way it is possible to ensure the protection and defense of human and civil rights and freedoms

The European Court of Human Rights in the Post‐Cold War Era: Universality in TransitionSweeney, James A.Oxon, New York, Routledge (2013), 262 p., ISBN: 978‐0415‐54433‐7

At the present stage of their development the Ukrainian society and the state are characterized by their pursuit to provide maximum realization of human and civil rights and to create a full-scale civil society. Obviously, in this context, a significant attention is paid to the human rights in Ukraine, however there is insufficient research systematically conceptualizing the human rights employing philosophical and legal instruments and methodology. The author highlights that particular attention in the mechanism of organizational and legal remedies is paid to judicial and extrajudicial protection of human and civil rights. In accordance with the Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine the judicial protection of human and civil rights is maintained through the system of general jurisdiction courts of Ukraine. The state ensures the right of every person to appeal in court against any decisions, actions or inactivity of the state bodies, local self-government bodies and government officials that violate human and civil rights. In case of exhausting all remedies of his/her rights and liberties protection in national courts the person can appeal to the international courts, e.g. to the European Court of Human Rights. At present, Ukraine holds the third position in the number of its citizens’ appeals to this distinguished international legal institution. Every person is able to appeal to the extrajudicial institutions authorized to protect the constitutional human and civil rights and liberties. In Ukraine there is a special body for this purpose — the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, whose activities are determined by the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights» of 23 December, 1997. In case when all extrajudicial remedies of human rights protection are exhausted, a person has the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, to appeal to the international human rights organizations (Art. 55). In terms of the current theory and practice of guaranteeing the constitutional human and civil rights, together with the national regulatory, organizational and legal guarantees, it is worth to distinguish the international guarantees of the constitutional human and civil rights and liberties in Ukraine. The special international legal guarantees of the human and civil rights and liberties are usually divided into regulatory and institutional ones. Key words: human and civil rights and liberties, constitutional state, national legal doctrine, international law, imitation of human rights, constitutional and legal mechanism for ensuring human rights and liberties.

Normative Consensus and Contentious Practice: Challenges to Universalism in International Human Rights Courts Courtney Hillebrecht (bio) I. INTRODUCTION In 2015 the Russian Constitutional Court announced that it would review all of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rulings against Russia for their constitutionality.1 This decision, which both the Duma and the Kremlin supported, underscored a fundamental disagreement between Russia and the ECHR about both the substance of human rights norms and the ways in which disagreements about human rights can and should be resolved. Russia has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1996 and agreed to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ECHR in 1998. Russian citizens regularly seek recourse at the ECHR and Russia even complies with many of the Court’s demands to pay financial reparations to victims. And yet, Russia’s prolonged tensions with the ECHR are textbook examples of the [End Page 190] persistent, unresolved disputes at the center of the promotion and adjudication of universal human rights. Russia’s relationship with the ECHR suggests that underneath the façade of the institutionalization and judicialization of human rights remain fundamental divides about which rights “count,” and if and how those divides should be bridged. Simply engineering a different court or judicial process cannot ameliorate Russia’s contentious relationship with the ECHR. Instead, as we can learn from Reza Afshari’s long history of grappling with these inconsistencies in the international human rights regime, the problem runs much deeper than institutional design; they cannot be easily resolved. In his 2007 Human Rights Quarterly article titled “On Historiography of Human Rights,” Afshari begins with an observation about a related fundamental inconsistency in the historiography of the international human rights regime. He writes: One of the main issues that the current historiography has to grapple with is the apparent disparity between the often-celebrated normative global achievements in codifying human rights values among the UN member states and the often-lamented failures to enforce them. . . . I argue that the link should not be seen as mechanical or procedural. Weaknesses so obviously apparent in the enforcement process signify the lack of vigor in the normative consensus; the vim and vigor by which the face was adorned by high-flying colors might in fact have masked a frail body.2 This pattern of inconsistency is visible across a wide range of issue areas, from women’s rights to economic justice, and in diverse political contexts, from Iran to the United States. Examining the disjuncture between “often-celebrated” international human rights judicial instruments and their “often-lamented” enforcement and cooperation failures can give scholars and practitioners alike a clear view of the tensions that Afshari describes. II. UNVEILING THE DIVISIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS JUSTICE REGIME As Afshari reminds us, high levels of state membership and participation in international human rights and criminal tribunals sometimes mask deep divisions among their members over both the meaning of human rights and their understanding of how human rights disputes should be resolved. This is, in essence, illustrative of variations in states’ levels of commitment to [End Page 191] international human rights institutions, as well as the basic norms under-girding them. As part of an in-progress book project, I examine four extreme manifestations of these variations in states’ normative and political commitments to international human rights tribunals: 1) member states’ withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, from the courts; 2) member states and political elites’ undermining and usurping legal cases; 3) stakeholders’ imposing financial restrictions on the tribunals; and 4) both members and non-members’ creating alternatives to the tribunals. In each of these circumstances, while contenders are calling into question the form and function of the tribunals, they are also casting doubt on the underlying norms themselves. For example, Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2012 and the Organization of American States in 2017 cannot simply be dismissed as the consequences of a state’s displeasure with the international human rights system.3 Instead, it calls into question the principles of universality, compulsory jurisdiction, and the ability of international human rights laws and norms to protect individuals’ rights when the going gets...

In its recent jurisprudence on domestic violence, the European Court of Human Rights started to examine the domestic violence cases in the light of relevant international human rights law developed in this specific area. This article examines the engagement of the European Court of Human Rights with other international and regional human rights instruments in domestic violence cases. Upon examination, the article concludes that by integrating its case law into international human rights law the European Court of Human Rights broadens the scope of protection for domestic violence victims and maintains the unity of international law.

This article examines the influence of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the development of the civil procedural law of Ukraine and the practice of applying its norms by domestic courts. The concept and essence of the precedent nature of decisions (decisions) of the European Court of Human Rights, their place in the system of so-called "judicial sources" of civil procedural law are defined. The shortcomings of the Law of Ukraine "On the implementation of decisions and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights" are indicated, which recognizes the practice of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law and the position of domestic courts regarding this deficiency.
 It is noted that the source of law according to the Law of Ukraine "On the Execution of Decisions and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights" is also the practice of the European Commission on Human Rights and its role in the procedure for considering complaints about violations of the Convention is determined.
 The directions of the influence of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on civil proceedings are outlined, where it is concluded that a precedent can be formed on any procedural issue due to the dynamic interpretation by the specified court of the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and its protocols . It is noted that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights generally constructs legal ideas regarding the principles of civil procedure and the right to a fair trial. On the example of a separate decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the law enforcement and regulatory influence on the results of consideration and resolution of a civil case and the development of the civil procedural law of Ukraine, respectively, are analyzed. The importance of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights for the civil justice of Ukraine is summarized. In particular, taking into account the precedent practice of the ECtHR during the consideration and resolution of civil cases will eliminate the factors that serve as the reason for the appeal to the Court and will introduce European standards of protection of human rights and freedoms into Ukrainian civil proceedings. As a result, the impact of the decisions of the ECtHR will reduce the need to appeal to an international judicial institution in search of just satisfaction, which will accelerate the protection of the rights and freedoms of the parties to a civil case within the framework of national judicial jurisdiction.

The practice of conscientious objection often arises in the area of individuals refusing to fulfil compulsory military service requirements and is based on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as protected by national, international and regional human rights law. The practice of conscientious objection also arises in the field of health care, when individual health care providers or institutions refuse to provide certain health services based on religious, moral or philosophical objections. The use of conscientious objection by health care providers to reproductive health care services, including abortion, contraceptive prescriptions, and prenatal tests, among other services is a growing phenomena throughout Europe. However, despite recent progress from the European Court of Human Rights on this issue (RR v. Poland, 2011), countries and international and regional bodies generally have failed to comprehensively and effectively regulate this practice, denying many women reproductive health care services they are legally entitled to receive. The Italian Ministry of Health reported that in 2008 nearly 70% of gynaecologists in Italy refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds. It found that between 2003 and 2007 the number of gynaecologists invoking conscientious objection in their refusal to perform an abortion rose from 58.7 percent to 69.2 percent. Italy is not alone in Europe, for example, the practice is prevalent in Poland, Slovakia, and is growing in the United Kingdom. This article outlines the international and regional human rights obligations and medical standards on this issue, and highlights some of the main gaps in these standards. It illustrates how European countries regulate or fail to regulate conscientious objection and how these regulations are working in practice, including examples of jurisprudence from national level courts and cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the article will provide recommendations to national governments as well as to international and regional bodies on how to regulate conscientious objection so as to both respect the practice of conscientious objection while protecting individual's right to reproductive health care.

State Obligations to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities Under the European Convention on Human Rights

The article is dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of the human right to a fair trial, the study of mechanisms for its normative and legal enforcement, and the effectiveness of its implementation through the lens of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the systematic interpretation of this right in the context of international human rights standards and its correlation with the national legal systems of the states – parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article conducts a doctrinal study of the right to a fair trial, defines its place in the hierarchy of fundamental human rights, and substantiates its absolute nature in the context of the modern concept of human rights. This right is one of the key elements of the rule of law, guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection and ensuring a balance between public and private interests in a legal state. Significant attention is given to analyzing the role of the judiciary as the primary guarantor of the realization of this right, while judicial protection is considered not only as an instrument for restoring violated rights but also as a structural element of the justice mechanism, which determines the democratic principles of the functioning of the state apparatus. The judicial system is obliged to ensure compliance with a set of procedural guarantees that prevent arbitrary restrictions on a person’s rights to access justice and to have their case reviewed objectively. The study identifies the main structural components of the right to a fair trial, including:the right to have a case heard by an independent, impartial, and competent court; the right to equality of arms and adversarial proceedings; the right to legal certainty in judicial decision-making; the right to the openness and publicity of the judicial process; the right to have a case considered within a reasonable time, as an essential element of effective justice. It is noted that access to justice is a prerequisite for the realization of the right to a fair trial. Access to justice is proposed to be understood as a real opportunity, guaranteed by the state and ensured by effective legal mechanisms, for a person to appeal to the court to protect their rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests. It is argued that the primary task of the European Court of Human Rights in every case is to assess the overall fairness of the proceedings. Compliance with the requirements of a fair trial should be considered in each case, taking into account the development of the entire proceedings, rather than based on the isolated examination of one specific aspect or a particular instance. The article also examines the issue of contradictions between national judicial systems and the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, which sometimes necessitate the revision of legal norms at the level of domestic legislation. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that a number of states face difficulties in implementing the Court’s decisions, which negatively affects public trust in the judiciary. It is important to emphasize that the institutional capacity of national judicial systems must correspond to European standards of justice, ensuring that citizens have a real opportunity for effective protection of their rights. Failure to meet such standards can lead to systemic problems in the field of justice and an increased number of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. In the context of international law, the need for harmonization of national legislation with the requirements of the Convention is emphasized, which would contribute to increasing the effectiveness of the realization of the right to a fair trial. This issue is particularly relevant for countries undergoing judicial system reforms and striving to strengthen its independence. The conclusions of the article emphasize that the human rights protection role of the European Court of Human Rights is a key factor in ensuring legal certainty in judicial practice. The enforcement of its decisions is mandatory for the member states of the Convention, and their disregard may have negative consequences for a country’s international legal reputation. Keywords: effectiveness, legal mechanisms, European court of human rights, fair trial, justice, judicial practice, convention, human rights, access to justice, judiciary, judicial independence, impartiality, equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, legal certainty.

The 2017 Annual Conference of the Association of Human Rights Institutes (AHRI) held at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Leuven (Belgium) from 27 to 28 April 2017 is the one of the leading events among the professional associations uniting international law scholars in human rights field. The conference focused on issues of monitoring compliance with international human rights obli-gations of States in the activities of universal and regional human rights bodies, particularly UN human rights mechanisms, human rights treaty bodies and regional and sub-regional human rights mechanisms within European, Inter-American and African human rights systems. Within these issues a particular at-tention was paid to the interaction between universal and regional human rights systems, specifically the role of regional mechanisms in the promotion and protection of human rights and enhancing univer-sal human rights standards enshrined in international human rights treaties. The paper provides a brief review of the selected reports presented at the conference, which raised a particular scientific interest of the author. The author describes the reports devoted to: 1) factors de-termining adoption and enforcement of international human rights obligations by States; 2) States’ im-plementation of international human rights norms through the lens of interplay between the internation-al, regional and national levels; 3) the interaction between the universal and European human rights sys-tems (European Court of Human Rights with human rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council).

The study aimed to analyse how the Ukrainian legal system implements the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to identify problems and prospects for improving this process. The article used methods of legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, comparison of national legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, analysis of the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, research on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights decisions at the national level, hermeneutics to identify terminological gaps, analysis of the implementation of European standards in the national legal system, and deduction to identify key issues in cases against Ukraine. An analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights revealed numerous systemic human rights violations in Ukraine, particularly in the areas of conditions of detention, unlawful arrests and lengthy court proceedings. Problems with non-enforcement of court decisions and violations of the rights to liberty and dignity have been confirmed by numerous cases, such as Gongadze v. Ukraine and Kharchenko v. Ukraine. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the limitation of the term of pre-trial detention, have reduced the number of cases of prolonged detention The study aimed to analyse how the Ukrainian legal system implements the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as to identify problems and prospects for improving this process. The article used methods of legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, comparison of national legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, analysis of the statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, research on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights decisions at the national level, hermeneutics to identify terminological gaps, analysis of the implementation of European standards in the national legal system, and deduction to identify key issues in cases against Ukraine. An analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights revealed numerous systemic human rights violations in Ukraine, particularly in the areas of conditions of detention, unlawful arrests and lengthy court proceedings. Problems with non-enforcement of court decisions and violations of the rights to liberty and dignity have been confirmed by numerous cases, such as Gongadze v. Ukraine and Kharchenko v. Ukraine. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine following the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the limitation of the term of pre-trial detention, have reduced the number of cases of prolonged detention

The extraterritoriality or extraterritorial application of international and European human rights treaties refers to the recognition by those treaties' states parties of the international and European human rights of individuals or groups of individuals situated outside their territory and, in a second stage, to the identification of their corresponding duties to those individuals. Examples of extraterritoriality abound in international human rights practice, and in particular in the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. Except for vague and often misleading gestures to the universality of human rights, which allegedly requires their extraterritorial application, however, many of the normative considerations underlying the extraterritorial applicability of human rights have not been broached in the human rights law literature. Nor, conversely, have human rights theorists, even among those who take the supply side of human rights seriously, devoted much attention to the threshold criteria for the abstract recognition of human rights and the trigger of the corresponding duties. To remedy some of those shortcomings, this article endeavours to bring some normative human rights theorizing to bear on the European Court of Human Rights’ recent practice on extraterritoriality. More specifically, the article delves deeper into the notion of ‘jurisdiction’ qua threshold criterion for the applicability of the European Convention on Human Rights both within and outside its states parties’ territories; distinguishes it from related notions such as authority, coercion, power, or control; and explains its normative consequences.

The urgency of the issue of human rights implementation is determined by its permanent nature. Human rights ensuring has become not only a moral imperative, but also a key indicator of the countries' development and their readiness to cooperate in the international arena. Human rights implementation is an important component of any democratic society. The level of freedom and justice within society depends on how efficiency human rights are implemented. The European Court of Human Rights activity, the practice of which is recognized as a source of national law, is of particular importance. The purpose of the study is to cover the practice of the European Court of Human Rights as a factor in improving the human rights provision in Ukraine. It is emphasized that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights is considered as having a precedent nature, although the system of decisions of the Strasbourg Court does not have formal features characteristic of "classical” precedent law. It is indicated that the European Court of Human Rights practice can influence national law in several ways: the use of legal provisions formulated by the European Court of Human Rights by national courts; interpretation by national public authorities of the norms of national legislation through legal provisions formulated by the European Court of Human Rights; amending national legislation in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights; development of the human rights doctrine. It is emphasized that the decisions of the Court are binding for all member states, parties to the Convention. Therefore, national judicial authorities are also obliged to apply the legal provisions set forth in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases where they concern the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is summarized that the European Court of Human Rights practice is a crucial factor in the development of domestic law, contributing to the improvement of the human rights implementation. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights influences the formation and development of national legislation. In the case that national legislation does not meet international standards, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights may encourage the state to amend its legal acts to meet convention standards.

The article is devoted to outlining the place of the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights in the mechanism of execution of the judgments of this judicial institution as governed by the legislation of Ukraine. The significance of the study stems from the urgent need for a thorough and comprehensive research of the legislative basis of the activities of the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights in this direction due to its obsolescence and non-compliance with the quality standards of legal regulation. For this, in particular, the very role of the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights in the process of implementing the judgments of the latter needs to be properly understood. According to the results of the research, it is substantiated that the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights: (1) coordinates the implementation by the state executive service and the state treasury of the formalities necessary for the payment of compensation for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; (2) represents the state in court, claiming damages from public officials caused as a result of their improper performance of their official duties, which led to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights against Ukraine and the payment of just satisfaction to the injured person; (3) informs persons in whose favor a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been delivered about ways to restore their rights and fundamental freedoms, including additional individual measures, as well as bringing information about these measures to the attention of government authorities, which are responsible for the implementation of these measures; (4) monitors the implementation of relevant measures by these government authorities; (5) advises these government authorities in the process of implementing a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Attention is drawn to the fact that the issues of legal regulation of the activities of the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights in these areas include, in particular: (a) mutual exclusivity of legislative provisions on the timeframe for filing a compensatory claim for damages caused by just satisfaction payments; (b) non-correspondence between procedures for imposing responsibility for these damages established by the Law of Ukraine ‘On Execution of Judgments and Application of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ and the Law of Ukraine ‘On Civil Service’; (c) the general obsolescence of the order of interaction between the state executive service and the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights; (d) limitation of the control toolkit of the Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights.