The ECHR awarded seven and a half thousand euros to the defendant in the case of Gelendzhik human rights defenders

The European Court of Human Rights awarded 7,500 euros to Vladimir Ivanov, an employee of the Gelendzhik Human Rights Center, in a case of torture and illegal wiretapping. This was reported on the court’s website, and the publication “Protocol” drew attention to this.

According to the decision of the European Court, Russian law enforcement services violated Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The decision is related to the criminal case of extortion against Ivanov and his colleagues. During the investigation, members of the Public Monitoring Commission, when visiting a temporary detention center (IVS), recorded beatings of the suspects. In addition, during the trial it turned out that the FSB was wiretapping their phones.

The Memorial Human Rights Center points out signs that this criminal case may be politically motivated: “We have reason to believe that the criminal prosecution of Gelendzhik human rights activists was caused by their publication of information, widely disseminated by the media and which became notorious, about construction in the environmental protection zone .n. “Putin’s dacha” and “the palace of Patriarch Kirill”" <...> An additional reason for the persecution mentioned by human rights activists could be the conflict between Vladimir Ivanov and the chairman of the Gelendzhik City Court V. A. Krasnopeev, which in 2010 had already led to the human rights activist being sentenced to 10 months in prison "

• In 2013, Vladimir Ivanov was sentenced to 13 years in a maximum security colony, finding him and three other people guilty of extortion by a group of persons by prior conspiracy on a large scale (clauses “a”, “d”, part 2 of article 163 of the Criminal Code) . In previous years, they opposed the illegal construction of a nine-story building, which the developer was erecting instead of a permitted three-story building. The developer himself filed an application against them.