The Supreme Court has declared that it is not mandatory to comply with urgent measures requested by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

The Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, in a ruling on the eviction case of elderly residents from Murmansk, stated that requests from the UN Human Rights Committee for urgent interim measures are advisory rather than mandatory. The document was noted by Kommersant.

“A request from the Committee to take interim measures for the duration of the complaint’s examination is of a recommendatory nature and does not constitute an unconditional basis for the authorised bodies to suspend enforcement proceedings,” reads the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The ruling was issued on 11 February and signed by the court’s chairperson, Igor Krasnov.

In the case involving the elderly Murmansk residents, the lower court had suspended their eviction from their only home at the request of the Human Rights Committee. The Supreme Court’s Presidium overturned this decision. The lawyer representing the elderly residents plans to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

“First Department” and lawyer Maksim Olenichev point out that the Supreme Court’s ruling addresses only requests for urgent interim measures, not all Committee decisions. These are protective measures intended to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant’s rights before the Committee has considered their complaint and issued an actual decision.

Human rights advocates insist that Russia is obliged to comply with all Committee decisions, including requests for urgent measures, and can refuse to do so only by denouncing the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee oversees compliance with this specific document.

Olga Sadovskaya, a lawyer with the Team Against Torture and an expert in international law, believes that the Supreme Court’s ruling ignores Article 15 of the Constitution, which establishes the primacy of international treaties over national legislation:

“The Human Rights Committee is not simply a ‘general advisory body,’ but a quasi-judicial body whose jurisdiction Russia voluntarily accepted. So when the Supreme Court’s Presidium declares the Committee’s requests ‘advisory’ and ‘non-binding,’ it is, in essence, ignoring its own Constitution.”

Sadovskaya notes that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to denounce the Optional Protocol or repeal Article 15 of the Constitution.

“Therefore, the Presidium’s ruling is not a legal position,” says the lawyer. “It is a political signal, framed in the form of a judicial act. This is of interest to those researching the rule of law in Russia—but it is by no means a reason for people to stop applying to the Committee.”