CASE OF ANCHUGOV AND GLADKOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos.

11157/04 and 15162/05)

Vladimir Goruynov, Viktoriia Ushakova
 Two applicants – S. Anchugov and V. Glagkov

----------------------------

In 1995-1998 they were both sentenced to death by a court

for particularly serious crimes, but later their punishment was
changed to imprisonment for a period of 15 years

------------------------------ -

Accordingly, in the period from 2000-2008, the applicants were

deprived of the active right to vote on the basis of deprivation
of liberty as a punishment by a court verdict

2
In particular, the applicants could not take part in the elections of deputies of the State
Duma (the lower house of the Russian Parliament) held on December 7, 2003 and
December 2, 2007, and the presidential elections of March 26, 2000, March 14, 2004
and March 2, 2008
 Arguments of the applicants

The deprivation of their voting

rights on the grounds that they
were convicted prisoners violated
their right to vote and, in
particular, to participate in a
number of elections held on
various dates in 2000 - 2008

Russia had not made any Having ratified the Convention,

reservations regarding the Russia was under an obligation
applicability of the to integrate the principles set
provisions of Protocol No. forth in the Convention into its
1, including Article 3 domestic legal system

3
Arguments of the RF Government. Domestic legislation

5
 Arguments of the RF Government

1. the Constitution was the highestranking legal instrument within the territory of
Russia and took precedence over all other legal instruments and provisions of
international law
2. In Russia such a restriction was enacted in the Constitution: the basic law of
Russia, not an ordinary laws
3. Impugned measure was aimed at protecting the interests of civil society and the
democratic regime in Russia
4. The Government also referred to the existence of an informal hierarchy in
penitentiaries
5. That the measure complained of was proportionate to the aims it pursued

6
 Opinion of the court

- Proportionality?
- Wideness of limitation ?
- Seriousness of offence ?
Finally, the Courdt made a decision to that there has been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention AND declared that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient