ECtHR as a mirror of the international judicial revolution Observation of the evolving attitudes of the media to the various branches of government shows that the global media have become increasingly critical of one branch or the other. Thus, at present, the main target of criticism (rather discrediting) is the executive branch. We are referring […]
ECtHR as a mirror of the international judicial revolution
Observation of the evolving attitudes of the media to the various branches of government shows that the global media have become increasingly critical of one branch or the other. Thus, at present, the main target of criticism (rather discrediting) is the executive branch. We are referring to the executive branch as such, not necessarily linked to any particular state. The most important thing in this situation is not an all-out war against the executive (criticism is often justified) but a total ban on criticism of the other branch of government (obviously unfounded).
Against the backdrop of fierce criticism of the executive, it is hard not to notice the complete absence of criticism of the judiciary. Attempts to do so are sharply rebuffed in the media and those who criticise are labelled as participants in an “attack on justice”. This label is all the more meaningless because criticism of governments is somehow not assessed as an “attack on governance”.
One cannot help but wonder why the global media discredits administrative authorities and shapes the “sacred” status of the judiciary. So far there have been timid attempts to get to the bottom of this issue. In August this year, for example, a report was published by members of the French National Assembly from the Defiant France party, which questioned the objectivity of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The report states that up to 30 per cent of former or sitting judges have close links with so-called non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in particular Soros foundations.
A couple of years ago, this kind of criticism of an international judicial body would have been impossible. Potential critics themselves would have refrained from such attempts, realising that they would be destroyed as professionals and dropped into a marginal space. However, the situation is beginning to change. New reports are emerging which do not just criticise the international judiciary, but also reveal the real face of that authority.
Of particular note is a report by the European Centre for Law and Justice. It is entitled Non-Governmental Organisations and Judges of the European Court of Human Rights and focuses on the links between ECtHR judges and an extremely narrow circle of non-governmental organisations and the promotion by those judges of the interests of those organisations.
Among the more than one hundred ECtHR judges who have held office over the past decade, more than twenty had links with seven NGOs that make up the aforementioned “small circle”. Among these NGOs, four stand out. The first place is occupied by the J. Soros Society, which is considered undesirable in Russia, followed by the “non-governmental” Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Helsinki Group.
Firstly, a fifth of ECtHR judges were previously grantees, active members or members of the leadership of these NGOs. Secondly, there is a practice of the NGOs’ judges reviewing cases in which the NGOs are parties.
In a number of cases this becomes known and judges recuse themselves from hearing such cases. However, despite the fact that a judge cannot, but is obliged to, recuse himself or herself in situations where there is a suspicion of bias, ECtHR judges have only fulfilled this obligation 12 times!
Among the most notable examples of NGOs trying to solve “their” cases through “their” judges” is the notorious Judge Janko Grozev (Bulgaria), who continued to sit on the Trial Chamber despite being involved in the Open Society and Helsinki Group case, of which he was a member. Judge Darian Pavli (Albania) has been a staff member and programme director for Albania in the Open Society for 15 years, as well as a Human Rights Watch “researcher”. Yet Pavli has not recused himself in any case in which both NGOs have been a party. The same is true of several dozen other judges.
The report (which runs to 216 pages) shows that ECtHR judges, who have been directly associated with NGOs, are directly involved in deciding cases promoted by these NGOs. This information provides direct evidence of the unscrupulousness of the judges.
However, the main point is not made in the report. And it is clear why. The publication of this information has caused a real hysteria in the international legal blogosphere, which was tasked to discredit the report and its authors, and the media have demonstrably silenced the event. Nevertheless, the report by the European Centre for Law and Justice gives us everything we need to draw more substantive conclusions.
We believe these conclusions are as follows:
1. The mechanism for the transformation of the judiciary as such, including the international judiciary, has been made public;
2. The reasons for the “sacralization” of the judiciary (including the international judiciary) and the real objectives behind this “sacralization” are clarified.
Despite a considerable number of systemic problems in the activities of national and international courts, there is a taboo on criticism of the judiciary in the global information space. There is reason to believe that the forces of global governance have staked their bets on total global control through control of the judiciary.
Previously, such a scenario was worked out through the control of the legislative branch, for example for the adoption of laws in certain states that would create the most favourable regimes for transnational corporations. However, the “seizure” of the judiciary seems simpler and, most importantly, more effective. Especially when it comes to international courts. It is no coincidence that the idea of the primacy of international law not only over the laws of states, but also over their constitutions, is being pushed through in parallel. There is also the idea of a “judicial” law, i.e. a law created not by parliaments, but by judges (sometimes by two or three or one judge alone!).
* * *
Of course, the hidden mechanisms of formation and operation of the European Court of Human Rights there show only one of the shadow sides of international justice. Global actors acting through NGOs meet resistance from state actors. “The ‘capture’ of international judicial power is an ongoing process, with varying success. Hence, different decisions of the same case heard by different compositions of judicial chambers. This applies to the ECtHR as well as other courts (in particular the International Criminal Court). Note that most of the judges from these NGOs are from six Eastern European countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Romania. These are all countries with a very specific degree of state sovereignty. NGOs also operate in Western European countries, but with much less success.”
Alexander Mezsiaev, FSK
