The decision taken by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on January 25 on the admissibility of most of Kiev and The Hague’s claims against Russia in connection with the events in southeastern Ukraine, including the downing of flight MH-17, was not unexpected. It reflects the West’s anti-Russian policy and cites dubious evidence throughout. For example, the Court relies on the conclusions of the Joint Investigation Team, which accepted information from the Security Service of Ukraine but ignored that which was provided by the Russian side, as well as the reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, which was caught spying for Kiev, and odious information from various kinds of non-governmental organisations.

The Court’s conclusions about Russia’s alleged jurisdiction over southeastern Ukraine from 2014 to January 2022 are completely based on the concept of “decisive influence” that it invented, which runs counter, among other things, to the position of the International Court of Justice on international legal state responsibility.

Such a one-sided and politicised approach cannot be reconciled with the high standards of international justice that Strasbourg declaims. The decision taken by the ECHR only confirms the justification and consistency of our country's decision to withdraw from the Council of Europe and from the jurisdiction of this biased judicial body in March 2022.