Pussy Riot’s former members Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova are suing the Russian government over their imprisonment for a protest in a Moscow cathedral.
Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova say their prosecutions amounted to torture.
They have filed a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Russia, seeking compensation.
Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova are demanding 120,000 euros each in damages, plus 10,000 euros court costs.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikov’s father, Andrey, said the pair should have asked for greater compensation.
“What can I say? Good girls! But, in my opinion, the requested amount is too small,” he said.
Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova are suing the Russian government over their imprisonment for a protest in a Moscow cathedral
“They should have requested 250 million euros, not 250,000 euros,” he told the popular Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets.
Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were among five Pussy Riot members who donned balaclavas in February 2012 and tried to perform their song Mother of God, Drive Putin Out, in the Christ the Savior Cathedral, near the Kremlin.
The performance was interrupted by staff at the cathedral and they were arrested along with a third member of the group.
Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were sentenced to two years in prison each after being convicted of hooliganism.
They both served 21 months in prison and pre-trial detention.
Their story was covered widely, and they were viewed sympathetically in western countries.
Their actions were seen as blasphemous by many Russians, and were condemned by the Orthodox Church.
The two Pussy Riot members opened their action at the ECHR in June 2012, while their own cases in Russia were still ongoing.
They argued that their detention and trial had violated European Convention of Human Rights articles which prohibit torture and guarantee freedom of expression, security and liberty, and a fair trial. Russia is a signatory to the convention.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Poland broke the European human rights convention in helping the CIA to render two terror suspects.
The judges said Poland had co-operated with the illegal transfers in 2002-2003, allowing two suspects to be interrogated on its territory.
It is the first such case concerning a CIA “black site” prison in Poland.
Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian, was arrested in Pakistan and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi, in Dubai.
Poland broke the European human rights convention in helping the CIA to render two terror suspects
The court held that “the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected by the CIA during their detention in Poland had amounted to torture”.
The two men are currently held at the US Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
They complained to the court that they had been tortured at a US-run facility in Poland called Stare Kiejkuty, where Nashiri was held for six months and Abu Zubaydah for nine.
The ECHR, in its press release on the case, said that “the Polish state, on account of its acquiescence and connivance in the HVD [extraordinary rendition] Program, had to be regarded as responsible for the violation of the applicants’ rights committed on its territory”.
It added that Poland had been aware that the men’s transfer to and from its territory had been carried out by the process of “extraordinary rendition”.
“Consequently, by enabling the CIA to transfer the applicants to its other secret detention facilities, the Polish authorities exposed them to a foreseeable serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article Three [prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment],” it said.
The court ordered the Polish government to pay each of the men 100,000 euros ($135,000) in damages. It also awarded Abu Zubaydah 30,000 euros to cover his costs.
A French court was wrong to convict Paris-Match magazine for revealing that Prince Albert II of Monaco had a love child in 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled.
The public interest outweighed privacy arguments in the case, the ECHR ruled.
After the Paris-Match article appeared, in May 2005, Prince Albert sued the magazine, but later acknowledged that the child was his.
The boy was born to Nicole Coste, a French-Togolese flight attendant.
When Prince Albert, the reigning monarch in Monaco, learnt that Paris-Match was going to publish the article he told its owner, publisher Hachette Filipacchi Associes, not to do so. But the magazine went ahead, including photos of the prince with the child. The revelation also appeared in Bunte magazine in Germany.
Prince Albert of Monaco’s son was born to Nicole Coste, a French-Togolese flight attendant
In France, Prince Albert was awarded 50,000 euros ($68,000) in damages, but in Germany his court action against Bunte was dismissed.
In its ruling, the ECHR found that the French court in Nanterre was wrong to convict Paris-Match over the article. It breached the magazine’s freedom of expression, the ECHR said.
The ruling said the French court had erred in failing to distinguish between “information which formed part of a debate of general interest and that which merely reported details of the private life of the Prince of Monaco”.
The child could not succeed to the throne, under Monaco’s constitution, but the court found that “the public had a legitimate interest in knowing of the child’s existence and being able to conduct a debate on the possible implications for political life in the Principality of Monaco”.
“The court concluded that, in disclosing the information, [Nicole Coste] had sought to secure public recognition of her son’s status and of the fact that the prince was his father, which were crucial factors in ending the secrecy surrounding him.”
Back in 2005, Nicole Coste was quoted as saying she met Prince Albert on a flight in 1997, leading to a relationship and the birth of the boy, Alexandre, in August 2003.
Prince Albert has two children from previous relationships – 22-year-old daughter Jazmin and 10-year-old son Alexandre.
Last month Prince Albert and Princess Charlene announced they were expecting their first child.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has found that Ukraine’s pre-trial detention of former PM Yulia Tymoshenko in 2011 was illegal and her rights to a legal review and compensation were violated.
Yulia Tymoshenko, who is still in jail, also alleged physical mistreatment, but that complaint was not upheld by the ECHR.
The former prime minister was jailed for seven years for abuse of office over a gas deal.
Tuesday’s verdict does not overturn her prison sentence.
The ECHR will examine that verdict later, in a separate case.
ECHR has found that Ukraine’s pre-trial detention of former PM Yulia Tymoshenko in 2011 was illegal and her rights to a legal review and compensation were violated
According to the Associated Press, a Ukrainian government official stormed out of the courtroom after Tuesday’s ruling.
The judgment is not final as the parties involved have three months to lodge any appeal.
Yulia Tymoshenko did not enter any claims for damages.
She was a key figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution and went on to become prime minister twice.
In 2009, Yulia Tymoshenko signed a 10-year contract for the supply of Russian gas to Ukraine.
At her trial two years later, prosecutors argued that she had not obtained the approval of her cabinet to sign the deal, and that it had proved ruinous for the Ukrainian economy.
The Strasbourg-based ECHR found that Yulia Tymoshenko’s detention ahead of her trial had violated her right to liberty and security because it had been ordered for an indefinite period of time.
“No risk of absconding was discernible,” it said, noting that the former prime minister had not breached her obligation not to leave town or failed to attend a court hearing.
The Ukrainian trial judge, Rodion Kireyev, had ordered her to spend the trial in custody for contempt of court.
However, the ECHR judges ruled that this “reason was not included among those which would justify deprivation of liberty”.
The ECHR also ruled that Ukraine’s judiciary lacked a procedure for reviewing the detention of suspects.
A complaint that Yulia Tymoshenko had been denied proper medical treatment in detention was thrown out by the ECHR judges.
On the contrary, they found that the local authorities “had invested efforts far beyond the normal healthcare arrangements available for ordinary detainees in Ukraine”.
They also threw out an allegation that Yulia Tymoshenko had been beaten during a transfer from prison to hospital in April 2012, pointing out that she had refused to undergo a full forensic examination at the time.
Though the ECHR did not rule on the legality of Yulia Tymoshenko’s actual conviction, her daughter Yevgenia hailed the verdict as the “first victory” on the way to her release.
“Today we are saying that this is the first victory, the first step to her full political rehabilitation and her immediate release,” she told reporters in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.