Of course the decision was biased and wrong in law, it was basically a political decision, ordered from the top, simple as that. However, what is important now for us, is to realise that these political decisions will not get any better. The court has two structural failings. The first, is that it is a political one controled by the EU and NATO to a large extent. So considering our stated top threat is NATO, would you expect anything else towards us. The second, is that it is subject to the usual European loser/submissive culture, where it is better to die and preserve criminal rights than survive - the EHCR (European Headquarters for Criminal Rights) rather that the ECHR. So what should we do now, do we continue to be exposed to these political decisions, or do we protect ourselves and justice. There are two approaches, we can remain within, and allow the court through continual political decisions to loose more and more credibility. Effectively what has happened regarding the UK's view on the courts due to the European loser/submissive culture, or do we exit the court now and follow the US example of realising that court decisions will be politicised against your service personnel by Europeans, who have a political agenda and underlying looser/submissive culture. I favour the second, which is an imediate exit from the courts Jurisdiction, accompanied by an activity to replace it with a world court some time down the line.

It is funny in a sad sort of way to see the Duma huff and puff and vent steam when required to face realities of Russia’s Soviet aggression against neighbours, and when confronted with the world community’s reflection on Soviet realities. Extravagant accusations about some sort of supposed revision of the Nuremberg determinations seem particularly odd to any who look at the matter from outside of the cocoon of paranoia which Stalin wove around Russia, and from whose strands post-Soviet Russia has not been able to fully free itself. As usual, we find booming Russian accusations of alleged attempts to re-write history, in this case already coming in the article’s heading. But also as usual, one searches the text in vain to find even one example of what a recorded point of history was changed from, what it was changed to, by whom and when. From Russia’s perspective, a loud accusation seems to be enough, with no substantiating factual evidence required. Russia’s real complaint is that the facade of Stalin’s propaganda, which has stood for 60 years or more, is finally crumbling, and can no longer hide underlying Soviet criminality. Of course, Soviet macro-criminality was never hidden. History has recorded it from day one, none of it has ever been re-written in the past, nor is it being re-written today. It has always been accepted as standard history around the world, and Russians who have accessed it only recently now claiming that something or another is “rewritten” is fetching. What is even more shocking to many Russians is having to face the reality of Soviet micro-criminality – ie, specific examples of the criminality of specific “Soviet heroes”. This is something which their Soviet era conditioning has left them absolutely unequipped to handle. Hence the hullabaloo both in the Duma and amongst Russia apologists.

What is always truly sad to see, is a political judement attempting to be given the garb of judicial and academic respectability. It is the classic game and trickery of all kangaroo courts, including ths one. The court in this case has played its game well. It has followed a revisonist political instruction. Its aim was to substitute the truth with mythical construction under political guidance. The 'judicial' methods of political courts are well known, to invent law, to use law arbirtarily, to scope law inapropriately to the facts, to limit evidence to create bias... The game is to run the sham of a 'court' process and them claim a legitimate position. To be decietful, to be political, but always to try to claim purity through a 'court' process. In this case the courts brief was clear, to initiate a process of rewriting history, to start a process of undermining the Nuremberg trials, a process that established the criminality of the Nazi regime, its crimes against humanity and its clear position as the aggressor in WW2. Nuremberg created the correct framework for the judgement of the allies response to this Nazi criminality, by correctly identifying the facts, it created the correct position in law regarding the opposing of the Nazi illegal aggressor. The perverted court decision here, deliberatly side steps the criminality of the Nazis and its first mover status, that created an environment outside of loose notions of military code of conduct at the time. It then ignores the true dire state of affairs and tries to create cocoons within the theatre of operation, ignoring the very nature of a worldwide all out total conflict, where civilisation was fighting for its very existence. This political court decision strikes at the very core of civilisation, as an attempt to legitimise the Nazi ideology, to frame Nazi ideology as just an alternative one, so as to treat actions against in the context of a mere simple organised war.

CountCash makes some most extreme allegations, including (1) That the European Court of Human Rights is a “kangaroo court”. (What is a “kangaroo court” and how does it differ from one that isn’t?) (2) That the Court had been given specific political instructions (by whom, when, where, how?) on the basis of which to reach its decision, and that its decision was therefore a deliberate miscarriage of justice (can CountCash read the minds and divine the motives of a large panel of international judges or does he have objective evidence that he’s keeping secret?). (3) That the Court invented laws (which laws? when?), used law arbitrarily (how?), limited evidence (all courts everywhere limit evidence to the points under legal consideration), created bias (how and towards what?) and ran a sham court (how does that differ from a real court?). (4) That the Court was deceitful (who was it trying to deceive, where is the evidence of its deceitful intent and on what objective basis is its alleged lie a lie?) and political (what are the politics of each of the panel of 16 international judges?). (5) That the Court had been given a clear brief to rewrite history. (By whom, where and when? What point of recorded history was it trying to change from what to what?) (6) That the Court had been given a clear brief to undermine the Nuremberg trials. (By whom, where and when?) (7) That the Court strikes at the core of civilization. (What is the core of civilization, and how does the Court allegedly strike at it?) (8) That the Court sought to legitimize Nazi ideology. (What is the evidence of the large panel of international judges’ embrace of even one isolated aspect of Nazi ideology?) These accusations are radical, extreme and sweeping. Don’t they need any objective evidence backing them? Or is an accuser’s emotive personal embrace of a preferred world view enough?

What a laugh, now we have another Estonian suggestion, we abandon free speech and have all comments go through a court process and be controlled. The way you do things in Estonia? Lets look at the court's composition Jean-Paul Costa (France), NATO EU Christos Rozakis (Greece), NATO EU Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), NATO EU Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), NATO EU Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), NATO EU Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Dependent Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal) NATO EU Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), NATO EU Renate Jaeger (Germany), NATO EU Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), NATO Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), EU process, NATO discussions Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), EU Ledi Bianku (Albania), NATO Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), NATO EU Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), EU Aspirations Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro) EU aspirations I added some quick annotation, happy to very it to cope with any slight errors. Now do we see anything that links the judges together under one umberella. Well maybe EU and NATO. So are these EU and NATO organisations political, well its a fact they are. Are they linked politically together, well again its a fact they are. So the whole of the court has a single political head. Now is this political head at odds with Russia and the Soviet Union. Well consider there was a cold war and considering NATO and Russia treat themselves as mutual threats. Also consider the EU asseses Russia as an energy and competitive threat ....The simple fact is that the court is at political odds with Russia. Composition of courts is well understood, they must be free from the notion of bias, it is impossible that this court could be free from such bias, indeed the court would be automatically instructed by that political bias. This is all well understood in law, we always have to work hard to stop the conflict of interests and political background effects, we select judges and juries to try to be free of them. This court failed.

Where does CountCash get the amazing idea from that I’m suggesting we abandon free speech? By all means exercise free speech, CC. But understand that if speech contains vast, sweeping accusations for which not one scintilla of objective evidence is provided, then it is not especially significant even if it is free. Under such circumstance, words tell nothing at all about the purported subject, and only reveals something about the one who speaks them. The fact that a judge’s country of citizenship is a member of NATO or of the EU is no evidence whatsoever – none – of that particular judge’s competence in law or personal ethics in general, and even less of the technical correctness or otherwise of his or her judgment in this particular litigation. Just as, analogously, saying that because a person is a Communist he is therefore a liar, or because a person was in the Red Army of occupation in the Baltics he therefore committed atrocities. The evidence of a person’s ethics or criminality depends not on a political membership card in his pocket or on the uniform he wore. It depends on his individual words and actions. Those who lie are liars; those who committed atrocities are criminals; those who didn’t, aren’t. In each case the evidence of guilt is not in his connections. Assigning class guilt is not exactly an unknown tradition in Russian history, CC. Because you are a Russian and live in Russia does not mean that you, too, make this mistake. You make this mistake because of your specific individual actions, namely, by your assigning of guilt to people on account of the passport they have in their pocket.

It takes sheer ignorance of law not to understand a properly constituted court - The US tried in a court with Iranian,Venezualan,Cuban judges? yes they are queing up to accept it! there is a certain reality in this world you need to accept to move forward. It isn't a Baltic mythological world! But it is worth exploring more why the East and West see things differently, both in a military and a political context. There was an expression in the west 'what did the Europeans do to win the war' behind this is the fundamental different behaviour based on cultural roots; the roots that underpin European thinking.in terms of military conduct to this day. The East and the western fronts were different, which led to different viewpoints. On the western front as the Nazis expanded, did we see Belgium,French... leaders staying in their citiies, did we see the Belgium,French populations, fighting for each metre of cities, was Brussels and Paris standing up in street fighting, or was it serving Coffee and Laffe to the arriving Nazis. The truth is, that bar for some very, very brave resistance fighters in France, Belgium.... in general these poulations followed their capitulation cultures. So there is a view that if the Europeans had bothered to fight for each metre, many lives could have been saved in the Soviet Union, because the Nazis would not have had it so easy in Europe. Instead Europe transfererd the cross of fighting the Nazis to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the last resort for the defeat of the Nazi genocidal crusade. Which actually some in the west wanted to succeed. The Soviet union then went into legitimate survival mode in the context of the nature of the conflict at the time, they used proportionality to thwart the Nazi crusade. The west now see things in terms of a Nazi aggressor, capitulation and court process, A loser due process stance. Whilst the east after direct Nazi attrocities ...see things as legal proportional survival.

I am glad I have finally found a point of genuine agreement with CountCash. Western Europeans’ appeasement-driven initial response to Hitler was morally bankrupt and militarily/strategically disastrous. East, West, everyone had to pay a huge price as a result, even Germans themselves. Had the west not been so stupid and lily-livered in the first place there may not have ever even been a WW2. Consider how immeasurably richer the whole human race would have been as a result.

The European “Human Rights’ Court” is doing the bidding for the United States and its allies in what appears to be a hopeless effort to maintain U.S hegemonic framing of the historiography of WWII on two closely linked themes: Nazi crimes were primarily directed at the Jews of Western Europe [ironically Jews of Eastern Europe beyond Poland do not fit into this narrative. To see Nazi war crimes against the Jews of the Soviet Union, one must see Elem Klimov’d film Come and See]. This hegemonic narrative works despite the fact that in WWII, the U.S lost five hundred thousand soldiers in Europe’s Western Front. Canada, which at that time had only 12 million people, also lost close to five hundred thousand soldiers in WWII, but Canada does not claim it had singularly defeated fascist Germany in WWII. I was shocked and profoundly disappointed that Canada was not invited to send troops to parade in Moscow Red Square in 9th of May 2010. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union’ supreme effort in WW had been systematically suppressed in the West. Enter post-Cold War Russia. As the logical inheritor of the legacy of the Soviet effort in WWII, Russia is determined to change global public perception of the extent of Soviet suffering and heroism in WWII. The spectacular Parade at Moscow’s Red Square on 9th May 2010 was visually and symbolically the most powerful response to attempts to re-write the History of WWII. President Medvedev gave short, precise and moving speech. In my views, the best speech he gave in public as the President of the Russian Federation. See my next post.

Continue from my first post. The U.S via Europe’s response to Russia new aggressive posture to protect the Soviet heroic efforts of WWII is to use a minor weak and insignificant country of Latvia as a convenient surrogate punish Russia and restore the U.S. hegemonic framing of WWII. Thus, this court case is more than an attempt to punish this heroic WWII veteran. Rather, the main objective is to irritate Russia’s effort to project the WWII historiography pertaining to the Soviet supreme effort in defeating fascism in WWII.I believe this orchestrated attack is widespread and multi-faceted. I believe this geopolitical objective is one of the reasons why very good and visually stunning Russian film about WWII, Burnt by the Sun-2 was so viciously attacked both by neo-liberalisers insider Russia and anti-Russians in the Western media. Ironically, one country that is changing its views quickly because it can sense where the winds of history are blowing is Israel. After playing along for 65 years the false claims that Americans saved the Jews from Nazi death camps, the Israeli state is now quickly readjusting its position in the WWII historiography by giving due respect to the heroic efforts of the Red Army who were the first to uncover the horrors of Nazi death camps and whose documented evidence played crucial role in the 1945 Nuremberg trials against top Nazi officials. Those of us who love Russia and who have so much respect and admiration of the heroic deeds of the Red Army, we have nothing against the West glorification of films such as Saving Private Ryan but we also want to see Elem Klimov’s Come and See also be widely available to the same western WWII film lovers.

"230. The Court observes that, had the applicant been pursued for war crimes in Latvia in 1944,C.IX on Military Crimes in the 1926 Criminal Code, of itself, would not have covered the above-described relevant war crimes; a domestic court would therefore have had to rely upon international law to found the charges of war crimes..." "231. However, international law in 1944 was silent on the subject..." Latvia pressed very hard and succeeded under the Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War ( the Hague Conventions of 1907, 1929, 1949). The real confusion have been created as to identifying the legal definitions of "war crimes", "occupation","civilians", "combatants" and "prisoners of war". They adopted a general conclusion that the civilians ,even if they were traitors and armed, should not be killed. The "international law" in place ,even when domestic law with its amendments in 1993 and 1998 is not applicable. No experts were called to clarify conflicting issues. What is interesting is that a case against a war criminal could have been brought as early as in 1991-1993 after Latvia gained its independence in 1991 and before the insertion of amendments allowing the retrospective trial and lifting the 10 years limitation. This gap in possible then prosecution of war crimes by the nation so concerned by its occupations and crimes committed by either 'occupational forces' was neither scrutinised nor supported by relevant evidence. There wouldn't be any criminal case to answer as it would be statue-barred. I think this case deserves a broader audience, it would interesting to hear the views of the lawyers in criminal and international laws through other media outlets as well. At the moment the ECHR appears to deliver what was promised to its Baltic contracting states - the quasi-constitutional court facilitating collaboration between the European Convention system and the constitutional courts. It's lacking uniformity as well.

What will it take for Russia to understand that West, NATO and Satraps have been waging proxy wars against it and Russian people since the "end" of WW2? History is the best teacher! Never trust nor turn your back to Anglo-American! God Bless Mr.Putin, defender of humanity and freedom loving peoples everywhere!

Correct - the Western approach was militarily/strategically disastrous. The tools being employed of submission, allowing a takeover, falling into line with the new Nazi rulers and manufacturing the goods of a genicidal crusade for the Nazis. Beckoned the question, who was going to be the final salvation in the end, who was going to be the final policeman. It is always easy acquiesce, with no rules broken, always easy to just do nothing, dying is always the safest legal option when you are attacked, because to defend opens you to possible accusations of inappropriate violence. Was everyone to accept these failed tools and hope for a different result, was that what was expected in law. From a European perspective yes, because the Europeans on the west had a difefrent environment. The Nazis still saw them as European, a similar cafe culture, they didn't see them as sub humans, so the west had a traditional view of war and conquerer, the hololcaust and clensing was not theirs or directed at them, indeed many Europeans saw it as a solution to their jewish and gypsy problems. So not so bad these Nazis, from a European perspective. Also from a military perspective, when soldiers were streaming in from the US, Britain, Canada ... on the beaches, these were soldiers from pure miltary training, Boston or London or Montreal hadn't been sieged and reduced to rubble, corpses from Nazi reprisals hadn't been hanging in the streets of their villages and towns, they had heard of concentration camps, but hadn't smelt them. Additionally resources were shifting from the western to eastern front as the Nazis were trying to avoid facing their worst nightmare, a reckoning with the east after the atrocities they had committed. So for the West, they had to fight hard, but they were exposed to more of a traditional history and operation, more in line with standard warfare. There was war on the western front and hell on the eastern front. Even the Nazis accept this as well.

PR101, Absolutely agree with you about Canada, but it goes wider covering Australia, New Zealand ..... We should aim to grow the Parade into the fully inclusive rememberence of WW2. The Support of Angela Merkel was excellent, because the German people suffered hugely under the Nazis as well, both during the conflict, in the aftermath, and to this day under US and UK military occupation and stigmatism. However, whilst I agree that the US could be behind this case, and if not behind are strongly supportive to get the result. I think there are alternative simpler motives, that revolve around Baltic nations sidestepping their Nazi guilt and culpability, and also an attempt at rehabilitating Nazism in Europe. They have immigration and economic issues in europe; to some, clensing of some sort is necessary. However, to do it, first they would need to remove the facts of history first, and create an image that Nazis are ok really, if they just say deported and beat people instead of torturing and killing them, a no Burqa today, transport ship tomorrow approach. Then when they sold the message the real concentration camps would soon be back.

Svetlana, Great post, I would like to take a single competence issue and park the substantive law issues that formed the limited scope of materials and Jurisprudence in this case. I will come back to the issues raised, however I want to do it alongside other issues in full legal context. You wrote "No experts were called to clarify conflicting issues". Here I think there is a huge issue with the competence of the court and its metthods for determining through best evidence, the actual state of affairs regarding the true state of the law circa 1944 or anytime else with regard to human conflict situations. Here we have the ECHR whose scope should be exactly that human rights, but here we have them suddenly lurching into the very difficult area of defining what the law governing conflict was at any given time. This was a step too far, it is understandable in terms of a courts natural tendency to grow in importance until curbed and to try to be authorative and autonomous. However, nevertherless it was too far and too unsafe. In this area, the minimum to remain safe, would be to call a range of experts from wide political and legal backgrounds, then base their judicial assessment on this. The better approach would have been to form another specialist tribunal, calling the same experts, but also suplemented by specialist judges in the field. None of this was done, rendering the judgement crippled and unsafe. No Judge wants to feel they want or need help, however in complex areas of law, not dealt with on a day to day basis, there is no other alternative than to consult with experts in the field, for thir views.

Well, someone must set up global institutions that are just and fair, not instruments for the domination of one nation over another!! Clearly, this court is FASCIST! But for right now, I find this Latvian right wing George Bush stuff obscene! If they want to have a fit about something internationally during the Cold War, fine, fair game, although there must be EVIDENCE, but leave World War II and the Soviets in it ALONE! Now who would want to rehash World War II other than those who lost it? Who would want to attack heroes of World War II who are largely Soviet? This I will never accept! That would be like putting a knife to my own father and most of my uncles, including the one who died on Iwo Jima! Furthermore, in the real world, if the Soviets had not beaten Hitler at Stalingrad, ultimately Hitler would have joined up with the Japanese and marched right down Alaska into the USA (unless Mao had stopped them because Chaing Kai Chek sure wasn't fighting the Japanese) and Hitler would have slaughtered every Jew in America! I'm sick of these Latvians. What the hell did they ever do for humanity? Nothing! I don't know of a SINGLE thing they ever die for me!

CountCash’s equating the judges of democratic countries where the rule of law applies with those from countries like Iran, Venezuela and Cuba which are either outright dictatorships or in the case of Venezuela, a nominally though not very convincingly democratic, is a little bizarre. PR101, you are quite right, Russia is the logical inheritor of Soviet efforts in WW2 – its heroic efforts, and its criminal efforts, both. I am aware of no one at all in the West (or anywhere else) having ever “systematically suppressed” either the positive or negative side of the Soviet war effort. Imagining otherwise strikes me as being more than a little unrealistic. Svetlana, why is someone who sought to protect his country and his loved ones against the return of Soviet terror by fighting against it within the only military available in the circumstances, that of one of his country’s Nazi German occupiers, a traitor and a collaborator while another who sided with the Stalinist occupiers and killers not a traitor and not a collaborator? Surely a traitor betrays his own country. Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany was the country of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. Pauline, it’s not all about you or what Latvians have or have not done for you. In the context of this court case it’s about what both Soviet and Nazi murders, oppressors and occupiers have done to Latvia. As for who would want to re-hash World War 2, the primary answer to that is found in what goes on in Moscow each May. Other countries, while grateful for and remembering the sacrifices of their soldiers, aren’t obsessed with the matter, and do not turn their remembrance into an annual grand political spectacle.

Count Cash, I totally agree with your suggestions more countries should be invited in future parade of WWII in the Red Square. I do also agree with your assertion that the people of Germany have suffered and their suffering is compounded by endless representations of the German people [mainly by Hollywood] that the Germans are evil and guilty. I find less of this collective condemnation of the German people in Russian films of WWII I have seen so even biographic ones such as the Destiny of a Man. and Come and See.. One does not often see a total condemnation of the German people and culture in Russian films. The Russians have spirit of compassion and forgiveness. Your reference to Angela Merkel is also very important. It was quite touching that a tone from Beethoven’s the 9th symphony Ode to Joy was included in the May 9th 2010 WWII Parade in Moscow Red Square. In the future, there must be a way to include the Germans in the process of remembrance. Perhaps German musicians and German films can be brought to Russia during the weeks leading up to the remembrance week. I do not think the U. S ruling elite are particularly happy with Russo-German reconciliation process and economic integration marked by such major projects as Nord Stream. But I am deeply happy for Russia and German reconciliation and collaborations.

To Marzipan6 "Neither the Soviet Union nor Nazi Germany was the country of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians" Former: for over 50 years they were passport holders of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics. Latter: wishful thinking (no Nazi, just Germany) Very disrespectful at least to patronise and speak for these nations on this thread as if they all suffer from amnesia.