VZCZCXRO6709
PP RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL
DE RUEHSR #0033 3491557
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 151557Z DEC 09
FM AMCONSUL STRASBOURG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0199
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHSR/AMCONSUL STRASBOURG 0210

C O N F I D E N T I A L STRASBOURG 000033 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE ALSO FOR EUR/ERA AND EUR/RUS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL:  12/15/2019 
TAGS: PREL PHUM COE FR RS
SUBJECT: SAVVY RUSSIAN MOVES ON COE PROTOCOL 14 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Vincent Carver, CG, Strasbourg, State. 
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d) 
¶1.  (U) Russian Ambassador Alekseev told Council of Europe (COE) 
plenary sessions December 9 and 14 that the Duma may ratify 
Protocol 14 in 2010 in light of written assurances that the 
European Court of Human Rights cannot specify how a member-state 
should implement court decisions.  Most member-states welcomed 
the Russian interventions and urged a prompt ratification.  The 
Georgian Ambassador noted that Russia had successfully turned a 
judicial reform matter into a political question. 
 
¶2.  (C) Comment:  Russia has long been the sole hold-out 
regarding ratifying Protocol 14, which will reduce the number of 
judges needed to hear most cases from three to one, thereby 
easing the backlog of approximately 100,000 cases.  Most 
observers noted that Russia remained recalcitrant given that so 
many of the cases dealt with alleged Russian violations of the 
European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in the 
northern Caucasus.  Russia consistently replied to criticism by 
noting that it had signed Protocol 14, but like any functioning 
democracy, ratification was up to the legislative branch.  By 
obtaining a written legal opinion that the Court cannot 
prescribe specific ways for a member-state to implement court 
rulings, Russia has succeeded in protecting itself from 
potential remedies it would find unpalatable.  Two-thirds of 
member-states are needed to prescribe how a member-state 
implements a court decision.  Moscow has already demonstrated, 
during the COE's 16-month discussion of the consequences of the 
war in Georgia, that it can convince enough member-states to 
continue to engage, rather than confront, Russia for this 
possibility to remain remote. 
 
CARVER