Russia’s representative at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Deputy Justice Minister Georgy Matyushkin, has stated that Russia will appeal the ruling of the Strasbourg court that the Dima Yakovlev law discriminates against Americans wishing to adopt Russian children.

Zoya Svetova

Karinna Moskalenko, lawyer for the claimants, explains what the outcome of the Strasbourg ruling would be; and the Americans who were prevented from adopting Russian children by the law tell Open Russia what they think about the ECHR decision.

What do you think about Russia appealing the decision announced today in the Grand Chamber of the ECHR?

 “I welcome it. Russia may want to appeal, but the question remains whether the Grand Chamber will accept the referral of the case for fresh consideration. This will be decided by a panel of five judges. That’s the first point. Secondly, even if this panel decides that the matter should be referred to the Grand Chamber, the implementation of the decision will of course be deferred; but it also means that there will be public hearings (Grand Chamber decisions are only taken after public hearings). In that case I consider that the legal community and public opinion throughout the world will be following this shameful affair for a long time to come.”

You and the claimants filed the suit in 2012, so you have waited four years for judgment, but priority was given to consideration of the appeal within five days. What is the significance of this ECHR ruling?

“It means that the passing of this vile, disgusting law in Russia discriminated against people without any legal grounds, and today’s ruling in Strasbourg recognises the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We shall await the ruling becoming res judicata and then work for its implementation, which must happen because it is fully compliant with the Convention and the Constitution. The ruling will enable us to demand the restitution of rights to all those whose rights were infringed.

“The only Russian judge, Dmitry Dedov, has dissented. The other judges acknowledged the infringement of Articles 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). American citizens wishing to adopt Russian children have been subjected to discrimination, whereas Canadian citizens, who had originally also applied to the ECHR, withdrew their complaints because their adoptions were successful. This is a highly significant ruling. I have been telephoned by people who have worked for many years in the ECHR: they are amazed, because many of them did not believe that it would happen.”

So now Russia has to repeal the Dima Yakovlev law?

“We’ll see what they’re prepared to do. But they will have to apologise to the people whose rights have been infringed.”

Will Russia be expelled from the Council of Europe if the law is not repealed?

“If Russia refuses to accept this ruling on the inadmissibility of discrimination, it will be a major infringement. But I don’t want Russia to be expelled from the Council of Europe. No way. Russia has to observe human rights and not leave the Council. The state can make amends in various ways, but the principal decision has to be the repeal of this discriminatory law. We shall demand the implementation of the ECHR ruling, rather than an illusory restitution of rights.”

Can Russia’s Constitutional Court issue a decree to the effect that the ECHR ruling should not be implemented because it contravenes Russian law? 

The Constitutional Court can do what it likes. Russia can do what it likes. I am not able to predict whether the Constitutional Court will take up this case, but I do know one thing: implementation of the ECHR ruling is mandatory and discrimination is forbidden by the Constitution of Russia and the European Convention on Human Rights. I am convinced that the ruling must be implemented without quibble.”

Who filed the lawsuit?

“There are Russians and Americans among the сlaimants. The so-called “scoundrels’ law” resulted in more than 200 families losing their chance of adopting a foreign child. The suit was filed by potential adoptive parents who had been through all the adoption procedures and only needed court permission to complete them. They had received special training and preparation both in Russia and in the USA and had developed close relationships with the children, so they were the only people who were entitled to expect that Russian courts would sanction their adoptions. But in many of the cases the court rulings were never forthcoming. We initially had some 40 families making the application and at the same time we were representing the orphan children who had not been adopted. For various reasons some of the claimaints subsequently withdrew their complaint. We used the practice at the European Court as our model: the person acting on behalf of the child is that child’s representative. Two of the teenagers were already of an age to grant me power of attorney, so I represent them.

What did Russian judge Dmitry Dedov write? 

“His opinion partially reflects the view of the other judges. I was particularly struck by his conclusion. Judge Dedov pointed out that Russia has many more serious problems than this. “The Russian government,” for instance, “informed the court that the previous figures still stand: there are over 66,000 children who have been abandoned by their parents and put into orphanages.”  All the more necessary, one would think… The judge writes that over the past 20 years this figure has been nearer 300,000, but I know there are other figures, more like 750,000; I know that the figures have changed – and not in the right direction. I am not going to argue with Dedov, but I don’t understand his conclusion. The adoption procedures for 200 children were [almost] complete, but they were not adopted because of the Dima Yakovlev Law and now approximately 2,000 children are still not being cared for in a family. If Russians are not prepared to take these sick children into their homes, I can see no particular logic in Judge Dedov’s private opinion.”

Americans who were prevented from adopting Russian children by the Dima Yakovlev Law told us what they think about the ECHR ruling.

Sarah and Eric Peterson had been going to adopt two disabled children, Arina and Dima:

“The victims of the Dima Yakovlev Law were first and foremost the children who could have spent these four years in a loving family, receiving essential medical treatment. I’m glad the Court has recognised that the Law is unlawful, but compensation for the would-be adoptive parents will not help the children whose future has been stolen from them”

Pam Romano, who was not allowed to adopt two brothers, Yura and Bogdan:

“This is marvellous news and the only correct decision the European Court could have taken. My husband and I are very pleased with the ruling. But we were not part of the judicial process. We didn’t lodge a claim with the court because we have seen in other ECHR cases relating to Russia that your country completely ignores court rulings. Indeed, it’s very unclear what will happen to this one.”

This article was first published by Open Russia