Latest news with #EHCR
Russia Today
16-03-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Trial by fire: Why the West won't admit the truth about the 2014 Odessa massacre
A sure sign that a news item inconvenient for Zelensky-regime Ukraine and its (remaining) Western supporters is important is that the Western mainstream media will do their best to ignore it. That rule has now held true for more than a decade. At some point in the future, it may stop operating, namely, if the West fully abandons its proxy war regime in Kiev. Then, and only then, will the Western media heed a new 'party line' by dumping that regime as well. But we are not there yet. Indeed, if it is up to the NATO-EU Europeans it may still be a long time before we will see Western mainstream media treating Ukrainian regimes truthfully and critically. Exhibit A that the kid-gloves-for-Kiev rule is still in force: The way in which Western mainstream media audiences are not getting to hear much about a clearly momentous and, in its political implications, far-reaching finding by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): A few days ago, the court decided an extremely important case against the Ukrainian authorities of both the major port city of Odessa and the capital Kiev. The essence of the case and the court's findings, which are available on its website, is not complicated. The Ukrainian authorities abysmally failed to avoid or respond adequately to severe street violence and killings that took place in Odessa in May 2014 between supporters and opponents of the regime change operation commonly known as 'Maidan.' Subsequently they also obstinately failed to investigate the incident. In other words, they first messed up criminally – or worse – and then engaged in a cover-up for over a decade. Not a minor issue if you consider that hundreds of victims were injured and 48 killed on that day. Twenty-eight plaintiffs from Ukraine had challenged these failures of Ukraine's current regime before the EHCR. After too many years of deliberation the court has now finally recognized – unanimously, including a Ukrainian judge – that the Ukrainian authorities committed 'violations of Article 2 (right to life/investigation) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the relevant authorities' failure to do everything that could reasonably be expected of them to prevent the violence in Odesa on 2 May 2014, to stop that violence after its outbreak, to ensure timely rescue measures for people trapped in the fire, and to institute and conduct an effective investigation into the events.' In addition, in one case, a 'violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)' was also found because of a delay in handing over a victim's body for burial. Take a step back and just consider the bare essentials: Unrest and mass killing have occurred, in a major city, too. And the public authorities of the state concerned have never provided a remotely adequate investigation or legal redress: Victims and their relatives were left without justice, perpetrators without punishment. In any country that is not content with being a failed state, an authoritarian swamp, or both, the above alone would be a scandal rocking and toppling governments. But not in post-Maidan Ukraine. There, instead, major media, such as Ukrainska Pravda, for instance, are performing acrobatic mental contortions to protect their regime from the fallout of the ECHR decision. And how do they do so? By blaming the big bad Russians, of course. Because the very mature first principle of Ukrainian 'agency' still is: If it succeeds, it was us; if it's a fiasco, it was the Russians' fault. So much for Ukraine's 'free' media and 'civil society.' Yes, that's sarcasm; yes, it's richly deserved. Those few Western mainstream media that have not entirely ignored the ECHR decision have, unsurprisingly, employed a similar tactic of obfuscation. Thus, Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung does acknowledge that the ECHR 'has condemned the Ukrainian authorities,' but reverts to common places about alleged Russian involvement to cushion the blow. In reality, the court did go out of its way to find something negative to say about Russia, vaguely but demonstratively pointing to Moscow's information warfare and intentions to 'destabilize' Odessa. Yet when you read the ECHR's press release on its decision honestly, one thing is perfectly clear: the gesturing toward Russia is unspecific and, in essence, rhetorical. It reads as if the judges felt they had to keep up appearances. If anything, what we learn from these obligatory swipes at Russia is only one thing, namely that the ECHR is biased against it. Big surprise. And the real take-away point then is, of course, that the judges still found massively, comprehensively against the Ukrainian authorities. Even an anti-Russian bias could not sway them – to their credit – from acknowledging reality. On May 2, 2014, that reality was gruesome: in clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan protesters, some died from gunshot wounds, but the preponderant majority, 42, of the victims died in a fire in the Odessa House of Trade Unions that broke out during and because of the fighting. While some of the fire's victims received help from outside, others were deliberately blocked up in the burning building or beaten savagely when they escaped it. The fire, in other words, may have been the result of deliberate arson or it may have started semi-accidentally when Molotov cocktails were deployed by both sides. But the key point is that it was not merely an accident. At least once it was blazing, it was a weapon because that's how it was used. How do we know this? In case of a genuine accident, everyone helps put a fire out. Yet that was not at all the case here. Even police and fire services deliberately refrained from intervening. Both sides fought, but the victims of the fire and thus almost all victims on May 2, belonged to the anti-Maidan side, which was far inferior in numbers and systematically demonized as 'pro-Russian,' that is, smeared as 'traitors.' And that is, of course, the reason why their relatives cannot receive justice in Ukraine and why those who killed or helped kill these victims are not prosecuted: they belong to the side which was in power then and is still in power now. The West has its own reasons to ignore this ECHR finding: its whole narrative of why it went to proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is shot through with lies: beginning with the Maidan Massacre of February 2014, which was blamed on the old regime but really committed by pro-regime change, pro-Western snipers, as Ivan Katchanovski has long shown in painstaking detail. Think about it: This was a false-flag operation that greatly helped catalyze a large regional war, pitting Ukraine and the West against Russia, with a clear potential of escalation to World War III. And the West will still not correct the record. And in this enormous Western information war offensive, misrepresenting the Odessa killings of May 2014 has been almost as important as covering up the true nature of the Maidan Massacre in Kiev just over two months before. Now, with the proxy war being lost for Ukraine and its Western supporters, an honest reckoning with these deceptions would expose how we were lied into it. And that is precisely why it cannot happen. At least not yet: Too many American, European, and Ukrainian politicians, generals, experts, journalists, and academics have too much to lose. This absence of truth and justice can lead to more killing. In Odessa, one of the pro-Maidan street fighters of May 2014 has just been gunned down in broad daylight: Demyan Ganul was an open and proud far-right extremist and neo-Nazi, tattoos and all. He led his own outfit, called the Street Front and made a habit out of mocking the victims of the Trade Union House fire by having barbecue parties in front of the building on the fire's anniversaries. He was generally violent, allegedly not only beating but also raping victims, including males. He terrorized others into fighting in the war. In his spare time, he toppled Russian monuments. The Ukrainian authorities have announced that the investigation of Ganul's end is now under the personal supervision of Interior Minister Igor Klimenko. The priorities of the Zelensky regime are ugly and unsurprising.
The Guardian
27-02-2025
- The Guardian
Cypriot authorities ‘failed' British teenager who reported alleged gang rape, says ECHR
A British woman who alleges she was gang raped in Ayia Napa has won a 'monumental victory' over Cypriot authorities after the European court of human rights (ECHR) ruled they did not properly investigate. The woman, who was 18 and on holiday at the time, told Cypriot police she had been raped in a hotel room by several Israeli males in July 2019. Ten days later the woman was questioned again, with only two short breaks over six hours and no lawyer or welfare services present. She signed a retraction at 1.15am and was arrested for 'committing public mischief'. The Strasbourg-based court, which referred to the Briton as 'X' in its judgment, said 'the Cypriot authorities failed in their obligation to effectively investigate the applicant's complaint of rape and to adopt a victim‑sensitive approach when doing so'. It also noted the 'numerous shortcomings' in the investigation, awarding the student €20,000 in damages. 'In conclusion, the court observed that the case revealed certain biases concerning women in Cyprus which impeded the effective protection of X's rights as a possible victim of gender-based violence,' the judges said. The Briton had resorted to the continent's highest human rights body after the country's attorney general, the island's top legal authority, rejected her lawyers' request to open a new inquiry with external investigators who could consider the rape complaint 'fairly and dispassionately'. The EHCR judgment was hailed as a 'huge vindication' for the Derbyshire student. 'The result couldn't be better,' said the British barrister Michael Polak, who heads the London-based legal aid group Justice Abroad, and represents the woman. 'It's a monumental victory for our client but also for the rights of women, other victims of sexual violence, and their access to justice.' Lawyers in Cyprus who had represented the complainant said the European tribunal's decision also amounted to a triumph against a system that frequently did not take victims seriously. 'This is a big win,' said Nicoletta Charalambidou, a leading human rights lawyer in Cyprus. She observed that the credibility of victims of rape in the country was 'very often questioned by a system built on patriarchy and discrimination against women and girls'. In 2019, the woman was forced to give testimony given over several hours in the absence of a lawyer or psychologist. She described how she had been attacked by the tourists as she and her boyfriend were in the room having consensual sex. She claimed the night began to go horribly wrong when the other men, at her partner's behest, barged in, attacking her 'one by one'. The Briton's defence team argued that her decision to withdraw the complaint had been made under duress after seven hours of police questioning and despite their client's highly distressed state. 'Overnight, she was turned from being treated as a victim into a suspect,' Polak told the Guardian. The retraction allowed the alleged assailants, who were aged between 15 and 22 and included the sons of senior Israeli officials, to immediately return home. Womens' groups in both Cyprus and Israel deplored the handling of the case. Activists in both countries, who gathered outside the courts as legal proceedings unfolded, said that the Briton had not only fallen victim to a macho culture but the desire of the two eastern Mediterranean nations to maintain close diplomatic ties. Polak said Thursday's landmark ruling reinforced the fundamental principle that allegations of sexual violence should be properly investigated 'without institutional obstruction'. 'Our client has shown immense resilience in her pursuit of justice,' he said. 'We hope this outcome will empower others to speak out against such offences and demand accountability from authorities.' Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222 in England and Wales, 0808 801 0302 in Scotland, or 0800 0246 991 in Northern Ireland. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). Other international helplines can be found at
