The imprisoned Russian opponent Alexeï Navalny obtained on Tuesday June 6 the condemnation of Russia by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for “lack of effective investigation” about his novichok poisoning, which is banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. In August 2020, he was poisoned with this product before falling into a coma and had to be placed on life support. The judges ordered Moscow to pay him 40,000 euros “for moral damage”.
In their judgment, the seven judges unanimously considered “that there was indeed a serious and imminent risk to the life of Mr. Navalny in suspicious circumstances, which had given rise to the obligation for the State, under Article 2 of the Convention, to conduct a effective investigation”. If it does not go so far as to accuse the Russian secret services of being responsible for the poisoning of Alexeï Navalny, the ECHR stresses that “to develop and use these chemicals, it takes time, skills and a level of organization that could hardly be achieved by individuals without any connection to the public authorities”.
Political motive should have been addressed in the survey
The expertise carried out in Russia after the poisoning had concluded that no toxic substance had been found on him. After his transfer to Germany, Berlin had however announced that samples had revealed the undeniable presence of novichok, a product developed by the former USSR for military purposes. These analyzes had been confirmed by other laboratories in France and Sweden.
The Court observed that the opponent, imprisoned since January 2021, “is a prominent figure in the political opposition, whose activism, particularly in the fight against corruption, has led to his arrest, detention, criminal conviction and ill-treatment on several occasions and (. ..) that he was justified in alleging that he was persecuted for political reasons”. He “had already been the subject of repeated threats and attacks”the judges continued.
“The political motive should have been an essential element of the investigation. However, not only did the investigation not address the possible link between the facts and the public activities of Mr. Navalny, but it did not seriously follow the premeditated attack thesis, even though none of the medical or forensic examinations had revealed a natural cause”, they pointed out.
