Why there is no trust in the European Court of Human Rights

There is a fierce struggle for resources in the world. Scientists are talking about the rapid depletion of the basis of our civilization - the reserves of fossil fuels. Oil is still called that in the old days, despite the fact that it has long ceased to be just a fuel. Today, oil is used to make plastic, which is widely used in almost all spheres of life.

In the conditions of the expected oil shortage, the eyes of the collective West, full of predatory hope, are focused on the Siberian bowels of Russia. The United States and its allied developed countries want to bring to power in Russia a politically controlled regime in order to appropriate and dispose of its natural, human, and other resources at its discretion.

Seeing the impossibility of achieving this goal through the direct use of brute military force, they rely on the internal destabilization of Russia and the discrediting of the top political leadership. Create a reputation for him that no one would want to protect.

The other day, the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee clearly defined the criteria and principles for building relations with Russia. The new methodology has the following paragraph: "The European Union must be ready not to recognize the parliamentary elections in Russia in 2021."

That is, the elections as such have not yet taken place, but they are already a priori recognized as illegitimate. But how can they know in advance whether the election was legitimate or not? And if they have the ability to clairvoyance, then why didn't they warn their peoples about the impending coronavirus infection? Of course, they lie. They lie and will lie, and they know in advance that they will lie, and they don't even hide it. Moreover, they openly announce their lies!

At the same time, they will probably send their observers to create the appearance of objectivity, please, here, we sent our observers, studied the facts, thought for a long time, weighed everything and came to the conclusion that your election is illegitimate. In their opinion, such a cheap performance is quite convincing. And we have seen that statements about the recognition or non-recognition of elections anywhere are just a political instrument, an indicator of the EU's attitude and nothing more.

Another such tool is the international judiciary. One of them is the International Criminal Court, the other is the European Court of Human Rights, etc.

These courts are like "two out of a casket." One is more colorful than the other. There is no place to put marks. The Attorney General of the International Criminal Court is a Gambian lawyer and statesman, Fatu Bensouda, born in 1961. She served as Attorney General of the Gambia. And if the level of legality had increased in the Gambia during her tenure as Attorney General, one could only rejoice. But she worked under dictator Yaya Jammeh, who came to power in a coup, rigged the presidential election four times (in which, of course, he declared himself the winner), and left power only after being overthrown by force of arms. Yaya Jammeh became famous for his stupidity and cruelty. He began hunting for people suspected of "witchcraft." Nevertheless, he attributed supernatural abilities to himself. Thousands of Gambians have died in torture and torment due to the whims and paranoia of a brutal dictator. And now his former Attorney General Fatou Bensouda will consider the case of Georgia against Russia. Such a modern international political judicial reality is from the "Scary Stories at Night" series.

Not far from the ICC went another already mentioned international judicial structure - the ECHR, which is also known as the Strasbourg Court or ECHR. Some invalids of the information war confuse it with the Hague International Criminal Court and the UN International Court of Justice, but these are completely different courts. The ECtHR is an international judicial body whose powers extend to all member states of the Council of Europe that have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It shall consider complaints from natural and legal persons only in respect of a violation of their rights under the Convention exclusively by the State, public authorities and officials of a State which is a member of the Council of Europe and / or which has adopted the Convention.

More than 10 years have passed since the August 2008 war. During this time, it would be possible to gather all the information necessary for the court. However, we have not heard anything reasonable and objective from the ECHR over the past period.

This is understandable. A study by the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg revealed several cases of conflict of interest between judges of the European Court of Human Rights and NGOs funded by George Soros. The European Center for Law and Justice is a serious organization, albeit a non-governmental one. Her study found that of the 100 judges who served at the European Court of Human Rights between 2009 and 2019, almost a quarter (22) had close ties to the George Soros Open Society Foundation or to NGOs such as Amnesty International. (Amnesty International) and others who are funded by a billionaire. For example, the Open Society Foundation has donated $ 100 million to Human Rights Watch since 2010.

A good example is the Bulgarian Yonko Grozev, who, as the leader of the Open Society judicial initiative, defended the case of Pussy Riot against Russia in 2018, before being elected a judge of the ECHR.

The Commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of Europe in 2012-2018, Nils Muiznieks, was for many years a hired activist of the Open Society Foundation in Latvia and fought against the "anti-Soros" legislation of Hungary, etc.

"The refusal of judges to withdraw their candidacy (in the presence of a conflict of interest - IP) is a shameful professional failure, which shows that the highest European human rights body has in fact lost its independence and is only a mouthpiece for George Soros and the Russophobic forces behind him." , - writes John Lowland in the international online publication "Signs of the Times".

Of course, the ECtHR sometimes makes more or less informed decisions on small, private matters. This is done in order to create a halo of objectivity.

However, by and large, when it comes to the important political interests of certain states, it is clear that the decisions are engaged, I think, it is clear by whom: the Soros structures occupying a radically anti-Russian position. In fact, the ECHR is only one of the tools to discredit the Russian government, an instrument of destabilizing the situation inside Russia in order to intercept the system of public administration of pro-American political structures.

These and other facts allow us to conclude that the European Court of Human Rights is not and cannot be trusted.

Inal Pliev,

political observer of IA "Res"

http://cominf.org/node/1166536779