Dmytro Yagunov: Russia Set Out to Denounce the Convention Against Torture Long Before the Full-Scale Invasion

At the link below, anyone can see exactly how Russia cooperated with the Council of Europe within the framework of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

As you can see, everything related to places of detention in Russia is a secret from the point of view of open access for ordinary citizens of Russia and any other country in the world.

In November 2024, the Committee issued an official statement emphasising that the lack of any substantive response to its requests and the inaction of the Russian authorities in enabling the Committee to exercise its preventive powers in Russia constituted a refusal (!) to cooperate.

As the Committee pointed out, ‘a signal of the Russian authorities’ commitment to preventing torture would be to resolve the fundamental issue of cooperation with the Committee. Another clear signal would be to allow the publication of 23 (!) unpublished reports on the CPT’s visits and the Russian authorities’ responses to them.’

However, Russia has once again confirmed its commitment to the most savage, inhuman, primitive principles of treating people in captivity – both civilians and military personnel. Both in peacetime and in wartime.

In fact, there is nothing particularly sensational about what Russia did the day before yesterday. It simply made public once again what has been going on since 1998.

Article 3 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment clearly states: ‘In implementing this Convention, the Committee and the competent national authorities of the Party concerned shall cooperate (!) with each other.’ This is the basic meaning of the Convention. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine very accurately formulated a simple but important idea: a country that uses torture as an integral part of its policy cannot be a party to the Convention, which is supposed to unite the European states governed by the rule of law.

If a state elevates the most brutal, disgusting, and unheard-of forms of torture to the level of an instrument of both domestic and foreign policy, then such a state has no place in the club of states governed by the rule of law.

Another question is: how should Ukraine try to protect its defenders and civilians from torture?

As has been emphasised, the Convention and the CPT are primarily (!) instruments of peacetime. According to Article 17 of the Convention, ‘The Committee shall not inspect places which are effectively and regularly visited by representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers or the International Committee of the Red Cross in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977.’

Reference may be made here to the Explanatory Report to the Convention (European Treaty Series – No. 126, Text amended in accordance with the provisions of Protocols No. 1 (ETS No. 151) and No. 2 (ETS No. 152), in force since 1 March 2002): It follows from Article 2 that the Convention applies both in times of peace and in times of war. However, the drafters of the Convention considered it appropriate to take into account the existence of other international agreements, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocols of 8 June 1977. In the event of an armed conflict (international or non-international), the Geneva Conventions prevail; this means that inspections will be carried out by delegates or representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, the Committee may continue to inspect certain places (especially in the case of a non-international armed conflict) if the ICRC does not inspect them ‘effectively’ or ‘regularly’. On the other hand, the provisions of this paragraph do not cover visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross to persons deprived of their liberty in a particular country in peacetime under bilateral agreements, i.e. outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions. In such cases, the Committee must decide on its position, taking into account the situation and the status of the persons who may be visited (para. 93).