By James Johnson
10/07/2025
So, on the 9th of July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights, or the ECHR for short, made a really big decision in a major interstate case. They ruled that the Russian Federation was guilty of something, and it was a pretty significant ruling.
The legal action brought together the claims of Ukraine and the Kingdom of the Netherlands against Russia for a large number of human rights breaches during the war from 2014 to the present.
Moreover, the objective was to ensure that Russia would be held accountable for the downing of flight MH17 over Donbas on 17 July 2014.
All 298 people on board, most of whom were Dutch nationals, perished.
The submission and prosecution of this case was by 26 states and one international organisation and third parties, which was without precedent in the history of the ECHR.
This case combined four interstate lawsuits against Russia in the ECHR that had been filed by Ukraine and the Netherlands:
The human rights violations committed during the armed conflict in Donbas by both Ukraine and Russia, including the downing of flight MH17 and the use of torture against civilians, stand as a testament to the gravity of the situation.
The issue of abduction and illegal transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia in 2014 is a contentious one between the two countries.
The circumstances and consequences of the shooting down of a civil aircraft (flight MH17) in the Netherlands versus Russia.
The human rights violations committed during the full-scale aggression against Ukraine that began on 24 February 2022 are the focus of this section.
Four lawsuits against Russia in relation to events that took place before 16 September 2022 were recognised by the ECHR judges as falling fully within the scope of their jurisdiction. That is, before the termination of its membership of the Russian Federation. This membership was in the Council of Europe.
The ECHR decisions highlight the threat to Europe’s long-established peaceful coexistence, citing Russia’s aggressive actions and statements regarding Ukraine. Similar rhetoric is also often used in relation to Poland, Moldova and the Baltic States.
Information about the massive and systematic nature of human rights violations that took place in the occupied territories of Ukraine before and after 24 February 2022 can be found in the court materials.
These materials include the killing of civilians and prisoners of war, imprisonment, inhuman treatment, torture, the systematic practice of eliminating features and signs of Ukrainian identity in the educational sphere, and the forced transfer of Ukrainian children and citizens deep into the occupied territories of Ukraine or to the territory of the Russian Federation.
It was found by the ECHR that the civil aircraft (flight MH17) over Donbas was shot down by a Russian BUK air defence missile system and that responsibility for this lies with Russia, in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols.
It is demanded by the ECHR’s conclusion that all persons deprived of their liberty in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine be immediately released and safely returned by Russia. An independent international mechanism for the identification of children taken to Russia for the purpose of their further reunification with their families or legal guardians must also be agreed to be established.
The negative aspect of the ECHR judgement is that a clear decision by European institutions on the events in eastern Ukraine was made only 11 years after the start of Russia’s disguised military operations in the Donbas region of Ukraine.
The events of 2014-2015 in Eastern Ukraine were met with a lack of decisive action and a fragmented response from European states and international organisations, which significantly contributed to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It is a clear example that if evil is not punished, it is bound to return and become more terrible.
The ECHR’s ruling was also a reaction to the remarks of certain European politicians, and prominent publications in the European media with rhetoric regarding purported ‘violations of the rights of ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking population in Donbas’, ‘unavoidable conflict due to forced Ukrainisation’, and ‘internal war in Ukraine’.
It is now quite evident to hypothesise that such speakers, media outlets, and their employees are either full-time agents of Russian influence, or receiving financial or other support from Moscow, or at least ‘useful idiots’ who are primitively manipulated by Russia.
The Russian government has described the ECHR decision as ‘null and void’ and has confirmed that it will not comply with it.
Notwithstanding, the ECHR decision will persist as a momentous historical antecedent, particularly within the ambit of the recently constituted International Special Tribunal for the Crime of Russian Aggression against Ukraine. This tribunal will be the inaugural instrument of the Council of Europe to ensure the prosecution of perpetrators for war crimes.