those arrested, and toward those accused or suspected of having committed a crime. In Russia, which carries the legacy of the Soviet Union, some still believe the notion of Stalin, that those in prison are to be treated as guilty. And this says a lot. This presents a blatant violation of the constitutional right to presumption of innocence. Were the courts taking the presumption of innocence seriously, there could not be a situation where individuals in pretrial detention are held in worse conditions than those in colonies and prisons after the conviction. Comparing this practice to the judgments before the European Court of Human Rights, I would like to bring you examples of the effectiveness of the ECtHR and the follow-up procedure. Gladyshev v. Russia9 is one example to look at. Gladyshev called from prison in secrecy, saying, “I am in the seventh year here in prison without a judgment, and I might die here.” That was in the middle of the night, and I said, “Don’t tell me these stupid things, it is impossible,” and he said, “No, it is possible.” So we took up the case and finally we won. Gladyshev insisted that all the truth he’s asking for is a jury trial. But he was refused a jury trial. The European Court decided that he was deprived of the right to a trial, and recognized a violation of Article 6 of the Convention,10 which concerns trial guarantees. After that, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed all the judgments, sent this case to a new trial, and Gladyshev obtained a jury trial, and the jury came back with an acquittal. Of course, he waited for this acquittal for eight years, but finally we can all agree that this was an effective remedy. If he came to us earlier, if the convention came to Russia earlier, it probably would have been even faster. Today, more than ten years have passed after the Kalashnikov judgment, and in 2012, with Ananyev4 and other cases, the Court noted that ninety cases with the same substance were already examined and another 250 repetitive cases are awaiting examination by the Court, and therefore the systemic problem in the Russian penitentiary system has been firmly recognized and stated by the Court. However, if you say, as some people in Russia and Europe have, that the Russian authorities didn’t do anything, it would be wrong. They did a lot. They presented many documents demonstrating how they improved the prison conditions, and still after a decade there is still the Ananyev case. It means that this is a real, persistent problem. And this is 2013, the year when the Russian Federation has to report to the Committee of Ministers—the controlling executive board of the Council of Europe—on what they have in reality done to improve the prison conditions. If one has enforced a system, which tortures every human, every person staying in pretrial detention, this is intolerable and inconsistent with minimum international standards for the treatment of prisoners. In another example, just recently, we litigated a case, Idalov v. Russia,11 before the Grand Chamber [of the ECtHR] and won the case. Russia was found in violation of, again, Article 6 trial guarantees. The judgment was very clear; it stipulated that the only remedy for this case was a retrial of the case. With much doubt, as I could see from the hearing of this case by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, they quashed the judgments and we are waiting for a new trial. I cannot say this will happen tomorrow, or that the trial of Idalov will avoid all of the mistakes that were made in the initial trial, or that procedurally it’s going to be correct. So it is not the ideal system, but it is much better than the cases before the Human Rights Committee, where you have the most just judgments saying that the person who is in a life sentence colony is a victim of unfair trial, and he has to be immediately released. I am waiting for this immediate release for, let us see, over twenty years, as in the case of Gridin.12 And I suffer, but nothing compares to his suffering. I have visited him there, and he still believes that he will be released, he says, “I have to be released and compensated.” And he said, “I don’t care much about compensation, but it is so difficult to be here with a charge of murder,” when he has never committed any murders. Advocacy Before the European System and the UN This is a proper place to speak about the difference between our victories before the Human Rights Committee and UN treaty bodies and before the European Court of Human Rights. When you win a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the state, according to Protocol 14,5 has to present within six months to the Committee of Ministers concrete measures that they took or are going to take in order to implement the judgment. However, unfortunately, there is no effective system for the implementation of decisions in the UN. I do not know when it was or who it was that explained to the Russian authorities—and I’m afraid in other countries there exists the same problem—that judgments of the European Court have to be implemented because they are binding but that decisions and views of the UN treaty bodies are “just” recommendations. I don’t know who said this first, but it is the general understanding among all Russian authorities and it is impossible to overcome it. So every four years, after the examination of the country reports to the ICCPR,6 [Russian authorities] say, “Thank you very much for your attention to our internal problems, but unfortunately we cannot implement this decision.” For example, as we repeatedly brought the cases Lantsova7 and Gridin8 to the attention of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided in the same way as before the decision and will most likely do so four years from now. And here we come to the well-known case of Sergei Magnitsky,13 whose death in pretrial detention was the consequence of inhuman treatment and torture. Possibly, if the Russian authorities had fully implemented the decision in the case of Lantsova v. Russia,14 this death might have been avoided, because the Russian authorities would have recognized their positive obligation concerning the right to life. However, non-implementation leads to the repetition of violations of torture, and it even causes such tremendous damage as loss of life. Finally, I would like to mention a category of cases where interim measures have been applied to prevent torture after an extradition. [The European] Court and [the Human Rights] Committee apply them quite rarely. But overall, these measures have saved dozens of lives. 25