Decision on merits; Subjects: CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, RUSSIAN FEDERATION; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-13641 (E) 031125 041125
Human Rights Committee
Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the
Optional Protocol, concerning communication
No. 2982/2017*, **, ***
Communication submitted by:
Olga Bykova (not represented by counsel)
Alleged victim:
The author
State Party:
Russian Federation
Date of communication:
17 December 2016 (initial submission)
Document references:
Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 23 May 2017 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of Views:
9 July 2025
Subject matter:
Defamation by private mass media
Procedural issues:
Abuse of the right of submission; lack of
substantiation of claims
Substantive issues:
Fair trial; unlawful attacks on honour and
reputation
Articles of the Covenant:
2, 5 (1) and (2), 7, 9 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (a),
(b), (d) and (e), 17 (1) and (2), 19 (3) and 26
Articles of the Optional Protocol:
2 and 3
1.
The author of the communication is Olga Bykova, a national of the Russian Federation
born in 1966. She claims to be a victim of a violation, by the State Party, of her rights under
articles 2, 5 (1) and (2), 7, 9 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d) and (e), 17 (1) and (2), 19 (3)
and 26 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on
1 January 1992. The author is not represented by counsel.
* Adopted by the Committee at its 144th session (23 June–17 July 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:
Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Carlos Ramón Fernández
Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada
Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru
Tamerat Yigezu.
*** Individual opinions by Committee members Rodrigo A. Carazo (partially dissenting) and
Laurence R. Helfer (concurring) are annexed to the present Views.
United Nations
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Distr.: General
16 October 2025
Original: English
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
2
GE.25-13641
Factual background
2.1
The author and her husband, Pavel Bykov, lived on the ground floor of an apartment
building in Moscow at the time of the events. On a lawn beneath their windows, their
neighbour, P, set up an unauthorized shelter for stray dogs. With time, the pack of dogs
became increasingly aggressive towards residents, particularly those with motor impairments,
such as the author, who had a second-degree disability due to her health condition, namely,
multiple sclerosis. Distressed, the residents appealed to various authorities to have the dog
shelter removed.
2.2
On 22 August 2008, P complained about a possible dog poisoning to the Ryazansky
District police department in Moscow. The police report indicated that, when an officer
arrived at the scene, there were no dead dogs, no evidence of a crime and no witnesses.
P claimed that she had found pills on the ground and suspected that the author had poisoned
the dogs, as the author had been vocal in complaining about the shelter. The police questioned
the neighbours, including the author’s husband, and reviewed video surveillance footage, but
it proved impossible to identify the person responsible for the alleged poisoning. On
1 September 2008, the district police declined to initiate criminal proceedings under
article 245 of the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) due to the absence of evidence. In the
same decision, the police declined to pursue criminal charges against P for false accusation,
as requested by Mr. Bykov under article 306 of the Criminal Code. It was noted in the
decision that Mr. Bykov should be informed of his right to file civil proceedings against P,
as the information gathered indicated potential elements of defamation in her actions under
article 129 (1) of the Criminal Code.
2.3
On 5 September 2008, a film crew from the federal television channel NTV visited
the author’s apartment in connection with the incident reported by P. The author’s husband
answered questions from a journalist, K, denying the alleged involvement of his wife in the
poisoning of the dogs. Mr. Bykov informed K of the outcome of the preliminary police
inquiry. On 9 September 2008, at 3.30 p.m. and again at 6.30 p.m., a video report about the
events was broadcast by NTV as part of the news programme Chrezvychainoe proisshestvie
(“Emergency Incident”). At 9.10 p.m., a report entitled “Zhertvy ne lyudi” (“The victims are
not humans”) was aired as part of the news programme Ekstrennyi vyzov 112
(“112 Emergency Call”) on the federal television channel of the television company
Peterburg, using footage filmed and narrated by the crew of Chrezvychainoe proisshestvie.
Both channels have millions of viewers across the country.
2.4.
In the Chrezvychainoe proisshestvie programme, it was explained that there had been
a “murder” in the courtyard of an apartment building in Moscow, with four “deceased”. It
was noted that the residents had filed a report with the police and had provided evidence,
namely, a “possible murder weapon” and footage from a surveillance camera installed above
the entrance to the apartment building, and the question was raised as to why the female
“suspect” had not been arrested. It was explained that one of the residents had brought the
other residents to tears when she had had to inform them that the dogs, which had been widely
loved in the apartment block, had been “poisoned”. It was noted that officers were examining
footage from the camera. Footage from 1 a.m., 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. was shown as part of the
broadcast, depicting a woman who was identified as the author. It was explained that one of
the residents had immediately recognized the woman as her neighbour, the author, and that
the woman had been seen throwing “something from a bag”.
2.5
In the report “Zhertvy ne lyudi”, broadcast by Peterburg, the following words were
spoken: “Residents of a Moscow apartment building have exposed a serial killer, but the
police are not yet concerned about their information. There is no mention of the crime in the
reports of the Central Department of Internal Affairs for Moscow. After all, the victims are
not humans, but dogs. And although we punish cruelty towards animals, the authorities have
not yet intervened in this specific situation.” In addition, the following words were spoken:
“This is the footage from a surveillance camera. The film clearly shows a dog convulsing;
within minutes, the animal will die.” Furthermore, the following words were spoken: “Four
street dogs lived near the building. Some of the residents fed them, while others, by contrast,
petitioned various authorities just to have the animals removed from the area. But despite
numerous complaints, no one responded.” Later in the broadcast, the following words were
spoken: “Then, Olga Bykova decided to take matters into her own hands. First, she got
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
GE.25-13641
3
poison.” In addition, the following words were spoken: “In the space of two hours, a woman
with a walking stick went outside three times with some kind of package. Here she is bending
down to the animal, hardly wanting to pet it. And here she is throwing something on the
ground.” Furthermore, the following words were spoken: “And takes something from a bag
and sprinkles it on the ground.” There was then a discussion in the studio, during which one
participant said: “Can we somehow hold this woman accountable? Should someone be
dealing with this, and will they? … So you can understand this woman, who, apparently,
became a murderer, right? Yes, the word ‘murderer’ is probably appropriate… In this specific
case, the dogs are dead.”
2.6
On 28 May 2009, the author filed a civil claim for the protection of honour, dignity
and professional reputation against both television companies, NTV and Peterburg, to the
Presnensky District Court and demanded a retraction of defamatory information. She alleged
that the statements made during the television shows in question implied her involvement in
the poisoning of dogs.
2.7
On 5 August 2009, the Presnensky District Court decided to split the proceedings in
relation to the two television companies and referred the complaint against Peterburg to the
Kuybyshev District Court in Saint Petersburg. On the same day, the Presnensky District
Court rejected the author’s civil complaint against NTV. On the basis of the transcript of the
programme Chrezvychainoe proisshestvie, provided by NTV, the Court found that the
phrases contested by the author, as broadcast by NTV, did not contain inaccurate statements
or defamatory information within the meaning of article 152 of the Civil Code. On
17 November 2009, the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of the Presnensky District
Court of 5 August 2009 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the first instance court
in a new composition. The Moscow City Court also quashed the decision of the Presnensky
District Court to refer the complaint against Peterburg to a court in Saint Petersburg.
2.8
On 17 November 2010, the author’s civil complaints against the two television
companies were admitted for consideration by two different judges of the Presnensky District
Court. On 2 September 2011, both proceedings were joined. On 12 April 2012, the
Presnensky District Court rejected the author’s claims in relation to both respondents.
Relying on a report containing the findings of a linguistic analysis of the phrases contested
by the author, which had been conducted by professor B, and provided by NTV, the court
concluded that the contested phrases stated an objective fact – dogs had died for an unknown
reason – and the different views of neighbours and the author’s husband in this regard. The
court did not find that these phrases contained defamatory information indicating criminal,
dishonest or unethical behaviour by the author and could not, therefore, be contested under
article 152 of the Civil Code. On 10 September 2012, the Moscow City Court upheld the
decision on appeal. The author unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the decisions of 12 April
and 10 September 2012 to the Presnensky District Court, the Presidium of the Moscow City
Court and the Supreme Court. The author submitted numerous complaints to non-judicial
authorities, including the Ombudsman, the President’s Office and the prosecutor’s office,
without any intervention from their side.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that the broadcast of the two television programmes and treatment
of her complaint by the State authorities and courts violated her rights under articles 2, 5 (1)
and (2), 7, 9 (1) and 19 (3) of the Covenant.
3.2
The author claims that, by broadcasting defamatory reports about the alleged killings
of the dogs and referring to her as a “suspect” and “murderer”, in the absence of pending
criminal proceedings or a conviction by a court, the television companies violated
article 14 (1), (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the Covenant. The author claims that the
procedural violations committed throughout the court proceedings prolonged the proceedings.
She claims that the fact that the court relied on the findings of a linguistic analysis provided
by one of the respondents, instead of an independent assessment, the fact that it failed to
ensure the participation of Peterburg in all the hearings, and the excessive delay in the
questioning of a witness by a court in Saint Petersburg, upon request of the Presnensky
District Court, delayed the proceedings.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
4
GE.25-13641
3.3
The author alleges that the State Party failed to protect her from an unlawful attack on
her honour and reputation through the dissemination of defamatory information by the
television companies, in violation of article 17 (1) of the Covenant.
3.4
The author claims that she has been discriminated against as a woman and a person
with a disability by the domestic courts, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
3.5
The author requests a written apology from the State Party, accountability for those
responsible for the violation of her rights, the annulment of the decision of Presnensky
District Court of 12 April 2012, along with all related rulings, the initiation of new civil
proceedings, and compensation for the violation of her rights and the resulting non-pecuniary
damage.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 27 July 2017, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the
communication. The State Party contests the author’s allegations under articles 2, 5 (1), 7, 9,
14 (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d) and (e), 19 and 26 of the Covenant as unsubstantiated and
inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol (for the article 19 claims) and article 2
of the Optional Protocol (for the remaining claims).
4.2
The State Party submits that the author’s claims under articles 14 (1) and 17 (1) of the
Covenant relate to the evaluation of facts and evidence by the domestic courts. The State
Party considers that the domestic proceedings in the author’s case display neither
arbitrariness nor a manifest error or denial of justice and that the author’s claims should be
found inadmissible as unsubstantiated under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol.
4.3
On 15 February 2018, the State Party submitted its observations on the merits of the
communication. The State Party denies that the author’s rights under article 14 (1) of the
Covenant have been violated by the domestic courts. It submits that the author was
represented in all court proceedings and that her representatives took the floor and presented
their arguments. She was able to contest all the evidence presented in court, including the
report on the linguistic analysis conducted by professor B. The Presnensky District Court, as
well as the appeal court, carefully assessed all the evidence in the case, including the witness
testimonies and the report on the linguistic analysis. According to the State Party, there is
nothing in the courts’ reasoning that suggests arbitrariness, manifest error or a denial of
justice.
4.4
In response to the author’s claim that the proceedings in her case were excessively
prolonged, the State Party states that the author has failed to request compensation for
damage caused by unreasonably prolonged judicial proceedings under Act No. 68-FZ of
30 April 2010.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
On 26 June 2018, the author provided her comments on the observations of the State
Party. She reaffirms her claims under all the articles that she originally invoked and insists
on their admissibility.
5.2
The author states that the right to claim compensation for excessively prolonged
proceedings under Act No. 68-FZ is only a right and not an obligation. A claim for
compensation for the damage caused by unduly prolonged proceedings would not remedy
the violation of the principle of a fair trial. Given the delays in the civil proceedings in her
case, if she had filed such a claim, either the claim could have been lost or its examination
could have been delayed indefinitely, leading to additional financial and time-related costs
for the author.
5.3
The author further asserts that she was not given an opportunity to challenge the
linguistic expert report submitted by one of the respondents due to a violation of the principle
of equality of arms. She alleges that, even though she did not contest the report, the courts
should not have admitted unlawful evidence. She claims that the courts placed her at a
disadvantage by giving preference to the respondent’s evidence, while disregarding her own.
This reliance on a single piece of evidence presented by the opposing party, she argues,
demonstrates arbitrariness and a denial of justice.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
GE.25-13641
5
State Party’s additional observations
6.
On 20 April 2020, the State Party submitted additional observations, reiterating its
previous position. It argues that the author’s comments essentially reflect her dissatisfaction
with the decisions of the domestic courts. She fails to provide substantive evidence of any
harm caused by the allegedly unlawful judicial decisions. The State Party notes that the
author interprets domestic and international law selectively and has knowingly refused to
exhaust available domestic remedies. Moreover, the use of provocative language, unfounded
accusations and an overall tone of disrespect towards the State Party exceeds the limits of
normal, civil and lawful criticism. The State Party concludes that the communication is of a
vexatious nature and should be deemed inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission
under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
7.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
7.3
The Committee notes the State Party’s argument that the author failed to substantiate
her claims under articles 2, 5 (1), 7, 9 (1), 14 (1), (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d) and (e), 19 and 26
of the Covenant. The Committee notes that article 2 is of an accessory nature and can be
raised only in conjunction with substantive provisions of the Covenant.1 The author does not
specify any details of her claims under this article. The Committee finds this claim
unsubstantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
7.4
The Committee recalls that article 5 of the Covenant is of a general nature and cannot,
in itself, be a basis for an individual claim.2 The Committee finds the author’s claim under
that article unsubstantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
7.5
The Committee notes that the author has never been arrested or detained. Therefore,
article 9 of the Covenant has no application to her case. The Committee notes the author’s
general allegation that the broadcasting of defamatory information about her had a negative
effect on her physical and mental state and violated her rights under article 7 of the Covenant.
The Committee notes that the author does not substantiate sufficiently her claims under this
article. The Committee also notes that article 14 (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d) and (e) of the
Covenant confers protection to defendants in a criminal case and is not applicable to the
present communication. Neither does article 19 of the Covenant relate to the present
communication, since the author does not claim a violation of her right to freedom of
expression. The Committee finds this part of the author’s claims insufficiently substantiated
and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
7.6
The Committee notes the author’s claim that the proceedings in her case have been
unduly prolonged and the State Party’s claim that the author knowingly refused to exhaust
available domestic remedies. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that
authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of
article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in
the given case and are de facto available to the author.3 The Committee also recalls that mere
doubts about the effectiveness of the remedies, or in this case about the relevance of such
1 M v. Belgium (CCPR/C/113/D/2176/2012), para. 6.5.
2 Wackenheim v. France (CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999), para. 6.5.
3 For example, Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; Leghaei et al. v. Australia
(CCPR/C/113/D/1937/2010), para. 9.3; and Alekseev et al. v. Russian Federation
(CCPR/C/134/D/2943/2017, 2953/2017 and 2954/2017), para. 6.4.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
6
GE.25-13641
remedies, do not absolve an individual from exhausting available domestic remedies.4 The
Committee observes that the author does not dispute the availability of the remedy, nor does
she offer arguments to demonstrate its ineffectiveness. Instead, she declined to pursue it on
the basis of personal doubts (see para. 5.2 above). In these circumstances, the Committee
finds that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies and, accordingly, declares her claim
under article 14 (1) regarding the length of the civil proceedings inadmissible under
article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
7.7
The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant that her
right to fair trial in civil proceedings was violated through numerous irregularities. The
Committee considers, however, that, despite multiple allegations, the substance of the
complaint, as supported by the documents on file, relates to the assessment performed by the
domestic courts of her honour- and reputation-related claims, which fall under article 17 of
the Covenant, rather than the fair trial guarantees under article 14 (1). In alleging procedural
violations under article 14 (1), the author relies on her own interpretation of domestic law,
which is not sufficient to substantiate her claims. The Committee therefore finds this part of
the author’s claims insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the
Optional Protocol.
7.8
The Committee notes the author’s claims that she has been discriminated against as a
woman and a person with a disability. The Committee notes that the author has not raised
these claims at the domestic level and finds her allegations under article 26 of the Covenant
inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies.
7.9
The Committee notes the State Party’s argument about the vexatious nature of and
abusive language used in the author’s submission, in violation of article 3 of the Optional
Protocol. The Committee considers that, although emotional, the submission is neither
offensive nor intentionally misleading and does not amount to an abuse of the right of
submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
7.10
The Committee finds that the author’s claims under article 17 of the Covenant are
sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and therefore proceeds with its
consideration of the merits.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the
information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional
Protocol.
8.2
The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under article 17 (1) of the
Covenant that her honour and reputation were attacked in programmes broadcast by the NTV
and Peterburg television companies. The Committee recalls that article 17 recognizes the
right of everyone to protection against unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation,
regardless of whether they emanate from State authorities or from natural or legal persons.5
This article imposes positive obligations on the State to adopt legislative and other measures
enabling everyone to be protected from an unlawful attack. The State is also required to
provide effective remedy against those responsible for such attacks.6 To determine whether
there has been a violation of article 17, the Committee will consider: (a) whether there has
been an attack on the author’s honour and reputation; (b) whether the attack was unlawful;
and (c) whether the State Party fulfilled its positive obligation to provide an effective remedy
that enabled the author to protect her rights.
8.3
The Committee notes that the author was mentioned by name in two television news
programmes in reports dedicated to the poisoning of stray dogs, in which the terms “murder”,
“serial killer”, “suspect” and “poison” were used. At one point, it was explained that the
author “decided to take matters into her own hands” and acquired “poison” (see para. 2.5
4 Meng Qin Chen v. Netherlands (CCPR/C/94/D/1584/2007), para. 6.2; Alekseev et al. v. Russian
Federation, para. 6.4; and P.F. and M.F. v. France (CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016), para. 10.9.
5 General comment No. 16 (1988), para. 1.
6 Ibid., para. 11.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
GE.25-13641
7
above). After the author had been mentioned by name in relation to poison, in the studio
discussion that followed the report broadcast by Peterburg, the words “this woman” and
“murderer” were used, and the need to hold her accountable was mentioned. These elements
are sufficient for the Committee to consider that the television programmes linked the author,
by name and appearance (a “woman with a walking stick”) (see para. 2.5 above), to the
poisoning of stray dogs. Even if couched in indirect or speculative language (e.g., the claim
that “something” was thrown from a bag), the framing and implications clearly pointed to
wrongdoing, affecting her honour and reputation. The use of emotionally charged terms such
as “serial killer”, “murder” and “poisoned”, in close association with the author’s name,
would likely lead viewers to conclude that she was guilty of malicious behaviour, regardless
of legal disclaimers. The Committee considers that there has been an attack on the author’s
honour and reputation within the meaning of article 17 (1) of the Covenant.
8.4
It is for the courts of the State Party to establish whether the attack was unlawful. The
Committee does not replace domestic courts in the assessment of facts or the interpretation
of national law, unless the assessment or interpretation was manifestly arbitrary or clearly
unjustified and resulted in a denial of effective protection under the Covenant.7
8.5
In the present case, the domestic courts found that the author’s claims did not meet
the standards for protection from defamation under the relevant national legal framework,
namely, article 152 of the Civil Code, because the information in the broadcasts constituted
an opinion rather than a verifiable fact (see para. 2.8 above). The Committee notes, however,
that, in reaching this conclusion, the courts failed to engage with the key piece of evidence
submitted by the author: the police report of 1 September 2008, which stated that there was
no proof of the author’s involvement in the alleged poisoning and characterized the
allegations against her as potentially defamatory. Some of the statements made in the
broadcasts contradicted the findings of the police report, for example the claim that the
neighbours handed over to the police a “possible murder weapon”, that officers were
examining footage from the surveillance camera or that residents had exposed a “serial killer”.
Even the fact of the killing of the dogs was not confirmed by the police report.
8.6
In addition, the courts relied heavily on a report prepared by professor B and submitted
by NTV, one of the respondents. In the report, B interpreted the incriminating language used
in the broadcasts in a narrow manner, taken out of the context of the broadcasts. The courts
did not seek an independent expert opinion to ensure impartiality, nor did they assess how
terminology relating to the criminal process would be understood in the specific context of
the investigative programmes.
8.7
In the light of these omissions – namely, the disregard for the factual evidence, the
failure to assess the language used in the broadcasts in its proper context and the reliance on
a report provided by an interested party – the Committee concludes that the domestic courts
did not adequately assess the evidence in the author’s case. As a result, the State Party failed
to carry out its positive obligation to protect the author from an unlawful attack on her honour
and reputation and to provide her with an effective remedy, as required by article 17 of the
Covenant.8
9.
The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that
the facts before it disclose a violation by the State Party of the author’s rights under article 17
of the Covenant.
10.
Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an obligation to
provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to
individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State Party is
obligated to provide the author with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of any
legal costs that she has incurred, and to allow her to request a reversal of the civil proceedings
in her case. The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent
similar violations from occurring in the future.
7 Mutatis mutandis, G.J. v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/110/D/1894/2009), para. 8.10; V.K. v. Russian
Federation (CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014), para. 6.6; and Akulich v. Belarus
(CCPR/C/140/D/2987/2017), para. 7.2.
8 General comment No. 16 (1988), para. 11.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
8
GE.25-13641
11.
Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State Party
has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a
violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State Party has
undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when
it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from
the State Party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the
Committee’s Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to
have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State Party.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
GE.25-13641
9
Annex I
[Original: Spanish]
Individual opinion of Committee member Rodrigo A. Carazo
(partially dissenting)
1.
I share the general concern for the protection of honour and reputation that is reflected
in the Committee’s conclusions. However, I am of the view that the Committee has failed to
carry out a critical analysis of the author’s specific claim.
2.
The author expressly requested a number of specific remedies in her claim (see
para. 3.5 of the Views), including:
(a)
a written apology from the State Party;
(b)
accountability for those responsible for the violations of her rights;
(c)
the annulment of the decision of the Presnensky District Court of 12 April 2012,
together with all related rulings;
(d)
the initiation of new civil proceedings;
(e)
compensation for the violation of their rights and the resulting non-pecuniary
damage.
3.
The Committee’s Views (see para. 10) do not consider this claim in its entirety. The
Committee finds that the State party is obligated to provide the author with adequate
compensation, including reimbursement of any legal costs that she has incurred, and to allow
her to request a reversal of the civil proceedings in her case. The Committee fails to consider,
whether in a positive or negative light, several elements of the author’s claim, such as the
request for a written apology and accountability for those responsible.
4.
While the Committee has full authority to determine reparations, it cannot ignore the
victim’s claims when making its decisions. To do so, as in the present case, weakens the
Committee’s position as a defender of the rights of individuals.
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
10
GE.25-13641
Annex II
Individual opinion by Committee member Laurence R.
Helfer (concurring)
1.
I agree that the Russian Federation violated article 17 of the Covenant by failing to
protect the author from unlawful attacks on her honour and reputation. I write separately to
provide additional guidance on the positive obligation of States Parties to protect individuals
from defamation by private actors.
2.
In its general comment No. 16 (1988), the Committee explained that States Parties are
required to adopt “adequate legislation” to protect personal honour and reputation, which
also enables “everyone effectively to be able to protect himself against any unlawful attacks
that do occur and to have an effective remedy against those responsible”.1 Such laws apply
not only to actions or statements by government agencies and officials, 2 but also to
“impairments to a person’s honour and reputation by … private parties that are committed
unlawfully and intentionally and are based on untrue allegations”.3
3.
The Russian Federation satisfied this legislative obligation by enacting article 152 of
the Civil Code, which gives individuals the right to petition a court to have information
discrediting their honour, dignity or professional reputation refuted ….” (see para. 2.7 of the
Views).4 The author filed a complaint against two television companies under this law,
seeking the retraction of statements in news broadcasts that falsely accused her of lethally
poisoning her neighbour’s dogs. The Presnensky District Court, however, found that the
statements did not contain defamatory information indicating criminal, dishonest or unethical
behaviour by the author and could not, therefore, be contested under article 152 of the Civil
Code (see para. 2.8). The Committee correctly concludes that the court made three significant
errors that undermine this finding: (a) treating certain statements in the broadcasts, including
references to the author using terms such as “murderer”, “serial killer” and “suspect” (see
para. 8.3), as opinions rather than as verifiable facts; (b) failing to consider a police report
that she submitted, which concluded that there was no proof of the author’s involvement in
the alleged poisoning and characterized the allegations against her as potentially defamatory;
and (c) relying on an expert linguistic report, submitted by one of the respondents, which
interpreted the defamatory language in the news broadcasts in a narrow and acontextual
manner (see paras. 8.5–8.7).
4.
The State Party thus violated its positive obligation to protect the author from an
unlawful attack on her honour and reputation not by failing to adopt legislation that complies
with article 17, but rather by the manner in which that legislation was applied in the present
case. The Committee reaffirms its long-standing position that domestic courts are primarily
responsible for interpreting national laws and assessing facts and evidence, but it rightly finds
that the present case is a rare instance in which such an interpretation or assessment was
manifestly arbitrary or clearly unjustified and resulted in a denial of effective protection
under the Covenant (see para. 8.4).
5.
I am aware of only one similar case decided by the Committee. 5 In Allakulov v.
Uzbekistan, a newspaper accused a university professor of fraud. After being acquitted of the
1 Para. 11.
2 For example, Kazal v. Australia (CCPR/C/138/D/3088/2017), paras. 8.3–8.6.
3 William A. Schabas, U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Nowak’s CCPR
Commentary, 3rd revised ed. (Kehl, Germany, N.P. Engel, 2019), p. 493.
4 For further analysis of article 152 of the Civil Code and other Russian provisions protecting honour
and reputation, see European Court of Human Rights, Kazakov v. Russia, Application No. 1758/02,
Judgment, 18 December 2008, paras. 11–13; and Thomas M. Callahan, “The right to reputation and
the case for Boris Nemtsov”, Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 39, No. 5 (2016).
5 The European Court of Human Rights has also found violations of the right to protection of reputation
in cases involving the publication of seriously offensive factual allegations having a direct effect on
an applicant’s private life. For example, in Rodina v. Latvia, the Court concluded that the Latvian
courts had insufficiently protected the reputation of a doctor unknown to the public who had been
described in newspaper and television reports as acting in a morally reproachable manner in
CCPR/C/144/D/2982/2017
GE.25-13641
11
offence, the author sued to compel the newspaper to publish a retraction, which was a remedy
authorized by the Law on Mass Media.6 The newspaper later issued a statement that failed to
identify either the author or the report accusing him of fraud, and also criticized his acquittal.
Dissatisfied, the author obtained court decisions ordering the newspaper to publish an
alternative retraction. A higher judicial authority quashed these decisions, disregarding the
process required by the Law on Mass Media for drafting and publishing retractions. In these
circumstances, the Committee concluded that the State Party had deprived the author of the
possibility to rehabilitate his reputation, honour and dignity, in violation of article 17, read
alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant.7
6.
The present case and Allakulov v. Uzbekistan involve obvious misapplications of
domestic law or clear errors in assessing evidence. Future cases may present more difficult
issues, especially when government officials sue journalists for reporting on matters of public
interest. Such cases require weighing the right to freedom of expression against the right to
protection of honour and reputation. Before reassessing the findings of domestic courts in
such cases, the Committee may need to identify factors, in addition to those indicated in
paragraph 8.2 of the Committee’s Views in the present case, to guide domestic courts in
striking the proper balance between these Covenant rights.8
connection with a private family dispute (Applications No. 48534/10 and No. 19532/15, Judgment,
14 May 2020, paras. 110–139).
6 Allakulov v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/120/D/2430/2014), paras. 2.3–2.5.
7 Ibid., para. 7.6.
8 The European Court of Human Rights has identified non-exhaustive criteria for balancing these
rights, including “the subject of the publication and its contribution to a debate of public interest; how
well known the person concerned is; the prior conduct of the person concerned; the content, form and
consequences of the publication; and, where appropriate, the manner in which the relevant
information was obtained” (Iordan v. Republic of Moldova, Application No. 10870/15, Judgment,
22 May 2025, para. 29). Also relevant is whether reporters provided “accurate and reliable
information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism” (Rodina v. Latvia, Judgment,
para. 108).