According to the rules of ECtHR, non-governmental organisations can, with the Court’s permission, make formal submissions presenting their position on the legal, ethical, and social aspects of a case as a third party.

The case in question deals with three complaints against the Russian government filed with the Court (Bayev v. Russia, App. No. 67667/09, Kiselev v. Russia, App. No. 44092/12, and Alekseyev v. Russia, App. No. 56717/12). The complainants are three gay activists fined for breaking the relevant regional Russian laws prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality among children. For example, in 2009 one of them, Nikolay Bayev (by whose name the case is now referred to in the Court’s documents database) held a protest in front of a Ryazan school displaying banners reading ‘Homosexuality is normal’ and ‘I’m proud of my homosexuality’, for which he was fined 1500 roubles (around $50). However, online articles describing the actions imply they were aimed at attracting a civil penalty specifically to enable them to challenge the relevant laws in Russian courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

The case was officially communicated by ECtHR in October last year. The Russian laws protecting children from propaganda of homosexuality, the complainants argued, had had them discriminated against, and infringed on their right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the Court’s statement of facts, the complainants also claimed the laws in question prohibited ‘mere mention of homosexuality’, irrespective of the content of the message.

These claims are contested by the Family and Demography Foundation:

‘We are of the opinion that the statutory ban on propaganda of homosexuality among children is fully compliant with all the fundamental norms of international law, including European Convention of Human RIghts,’ argues the Foundation’s Legal Affairs Director and World Congress of Families Advisor for International Human Rights Law Pavel Parfentiev. ‘It is well documented in medical research that homosexual lifestyle is associated with increased risks to one’s physical and mental health. Moreover, most Russian citizens regard homosexualism and its propaganda as immoral. Given all that, the Convention and the European Court’s own case-law recognise the protection of health and morals of the children, as well as the protection of the family in its traditional sense, as legitimate grounds for restricting an individual’s right to freedom of expression. As for claims that the law supposedly prohibits mere mentioning of homosexuality, they are altogether incorrect.’

The Foundation applied to the Court for permission to present, in accordance with ECtHR rules, its position on the case’s legal and ethical aspects.

‘Having had applied for the permission to state our position on the case, which the Court granted in mid-January, we have duly submitted our written observations,’ comments Mr Parfentiev. ‘We are confident that the disputed Russian law is not infringing anyone’s rights and is not discriminating against anyone. Unfortunately, given that, as we think, in the last years many of ECtHR’s rulings on these matters were sadly very ideological in nature and clearly served the interests of ‘sexual minorities’ rather than the rule of law itself, we cannot be sure the Court will agree with our arguments. But it would have been wrong to remain silent.’

The Family and Demography Foundation is a Russian non-profit organization primarily engaged in family and parental rights advocacy and the protection of human rights and human dignity relevant to it. Along with the For Family Rights NGO, the Foundation is a co-founder of the FamilyPolicy.RU Advocacy group providing lawmakers, the public, and the media with expert advice informing family- and parents-friendly policies. The Foundation also serves as World Congress of Families’ representative in Russia, actively engaged in preparations for WCF VIII, due to take place in Moscow, September 2014.

The full English text of the observations submitted by the Foundation to the European Court of Human Rights will later be available online at FamilyPolicy.RU

This Memorandum deals primarily with the issue of the compatibility of laws on prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality to minors adopted in different regions of the Russian Federation and bills currently considered by Russian and Ukrainian parliaments with the norms of international human rights law. It demonstrates that the laws/bills under consideration are fully compatible with international human rights law provisions.

The Memorandum shows that these laws/bills are pursuing legitimate aims (protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children, protecting the family “in the traditional sense”, as part of maintaining the public order (ordre public) and protecting the public morals), free from legal uncertainty, and proportionate to said aims. This analysis takes into account interpretations given to the laws in question by superior courts of the Russian Federation (the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court) in their judgements.

The Memorandum also expresses concern as regards judgements made by ECtHR in a number of cases. Its authors argue that in some of its judgements ECtHR has disregarded the need to protect the social morals, as well as the rights and interests of children. Moreover, the Court unreasonably regarded recent European trends and its own case-law as constituting a binding “European consensus”, thus undermining the sovereignty of ECHR signatories, with some of its judgements being explicitly ideological in their nature. This may lead ECtHR to passing untenable and ultra vires decisions, which poses a grave threat to the authority, effectiveness, and sustainability or the European human rights framework.

We’re publishing the complete text of the Memorandum.

Download the complete English text of the Memorandum (Adobe PDF)

Due to technical error the document text published previously was not the final revision. Please use the text published on this site.

The World Congress of Families is the most representative international network of the supporters of the natural family, traditional moral values and right to life, uniting NGOs from over 80 countries. WCF sponsors international Congresses and regional events.

There have been six World Congresses to date: WCR I (Prague, 1997), WCF II (Geneva, 1999), WCF III (Mexico City, 2004), WCF IV (Warsaw, 2007), WCF V (Amsterdam, 2009) and WCF VI (Madrid, 2012.). World Congress of families VII will be help in Sydney, Australia, May 15-18, 2013. World Congress of families VIII is tentatively scheduled for Moscow, September 10-12, 2014. These international gatherings generally draw over 3,000 delegates from six continents, including policy makers, leaders, authors, researchers, social scientists and activists.

“Since its beginnings,” Parfentiev comments, “World Congress of Families has promoted at the international level the timeless values of the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman (which are directed to the birth and upbringing of children), the fundamental rights of the parents, and the right of each human being to life from conception to natural death. All these values, which are recognized as international human rights norms, are often being diminished and threatened today. The protection and strengthening of the family is a task that should unite all the healthy social forces and international institutions.”

The principles set forth in every WCF Declaration from Prague to Madrid make the case for the centrality of family, marriage, procreation and parental rights — including the fundamental right of the parents to direct the education of their children and to impart parental values, without undue interference from the state.

“Those are values and principles that have been always defended in Russia by our For Family Rights NGO, and they are shared by the most Russians. The World Congress of Families has been protecting them at the international level for many years. We share their views and values. Without particular steps directed to defend the family at the UN and Council of Europe-level, and in the other intergovernmental structures, it’s impossible to defend the interests of the family in Russia today,” Parfentiev says.

Three WCF Regional Events have taken place in Russia recently. In 2011, The Moscow Demographic Summit “Family and the Future of Humankind” took place at the RussianStateSocialUniversity. In 2012, the International Ulyanovsk Demographic Summit “Enhancing the Regional Dimension of Family Policy” was held with the support of the government of Ulyanovsk Region. The IV Safe Internet Forum, which took place in Moscow on February 7^th, was also a WCF Regional Event.

“We’re convinced that Russia does and should play a very significant role in defense of the family and moral values worldwide,” says WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs. “Russia has become a leader of promoting these values in the international arena. We’re proud to announce Pavel’s appointment as a WCF Ambassador working with European Institutions such as the Council of Europe, European Union, OSCE and CIS.”

Pavel Parfentiev is the independent expert in the family law and family policy. He also acts as the WCF Advisor on the International Human Rights Law and the WCF Advisor on the Russian Constitutional, Civil and Family Law. The President of the FamilyPolicy.ru Group, Alexey Komov, acts as the WCF Representative in Russia/CIS and the WCF Ambassador to the UN.

The Demographic Summit, in the Russian city of Ulyanovsk, was an important international, inter-religious conference with the participation of leading social scientists, public figures and businessmen from around the world as well as the best Russian demographers and sociologists.

The Governor of Ulyanovsk region, Sergey Morozov, is one of the most active supporters of family-friendly policies in Russia, and has introduced many effective demographic measures that have boosted birth rates in the region. Mr. Morozov has initiated the Ulyanovsk International Demographic Summit in order to share the best practices in the field of the family and demographic policies and to encourage an exchange of ideas between leading international and Russian experts in the field.

The Summit covered  a wide range of issues relating to the demography and family policy, including an in-depth analysis of the worldwide demographic crisis and successful family policies. Organizers hope the Ulyanovsk region will become the pilot for the effective implementation of family policy (this experience could then be used in other regions of Russia, as well as on the federal level), and the first Russian region to be rated as “family-friendly” (FamilyPolicy.ru think tank will do ratings of the family-friendly businesses, universities and regions).

Ulyanovsk is also the first regional government in Russia tohost a demographic summit.

Speakers at the Summit included Governor Morozov, WorldCongress of Families Communications Director Don Feder, Alexey Komov (WCFRepresentative in Russia and the CIS and FamilyPolicy.ru President), John Mueller (of the Ethicsand Public Policy Center, a WCF Partner), and Pavel Parfentiev (Family Policy Advocacy Group and “For Family Rights” NGO).

After the Summit FamilyPolicy.ru, World Congress of Families  and the Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Region of Ulyanovsk signed an important  “Protocol of Intent,” pledging to work together to support the natural family, support children and provide solutions to Russia’s well-below replacement fertility rate.

The Ulyanovsk region has a population of 1,382,000 with its capital situated 555 miles east of Moscow, along the Volga River. Under the pioneering leadership of Governor Sergey Morozov, the regional government has undertaken important steps to strengthen the family and improve the demographic situation. Between 2005 and 2011, the number of births in the region increased by 19.5%, marriages by 24% and abortions declined by 40.5%.

Among other programs to raise the region’s birth rate, Governor Morozov has increased financial support for families with children, assigned land for housing construction to large families and introduced a regional standard of financial support for pregnant women.

We’re publishing the Executive Summary of the document now.

Executive Summary

This Report examines the issues around the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure (UN document A/RES/66/138), such as:

• procedural flaws in its development;
• its undermining of domestic legislation and judicial systems;
• its erosion of the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule;
• its potential belittlement of the value of the family.

Due to the protocol granting the Committee new powers to consider complaints for UNCRC violations (including complaints by children), particular attention is given to past ultra vires (beyond its authority) acts by the Committee. The Report notes with concern that many CRC acts can be viewed as being:

• contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of the UN member States (Article 2 of the UN Charter);
• beyond the mandate of the Committee;
• contrary to or not based on intergovernmental consensus.

In particular, its acts included:

• pressuring states to change their abortion laws irrespective of intergovernmental consensus and with no foundation in international human rights instruments;
• indirectly promoting controversial concepts with no established intergovernmental consensus behind them (legalizing same-sex sexual relationships, legal recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships, decriminalization of prostitution);
• demanding that states should give children sexuality education regardless of and access to reproductive health services regardless of and without parental consent and knowledge, with no basis in UNCRC or other international human rights instruments whatsoever and contrary to the Cairo Programme of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action (both possessing a degree of intergovernmental recognition at UN level);
• using an ultra vires (beyond its authority) interpretation of UNCRC to unlawfully introduce a new ‘obligation’ for states parties (to outlaw any parental corporal punishment for children) not following from UNCRC itself, and then demanding compliance, up to the point of changing their national legislation;
• demanding of states (contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of states and with no basis in UNCRC) ratification of international agreements hitherto not signed by them.

All these acts (documented in the Appendix), regardless of their ethical assessment, are shown to be ultra vires and must be recognized as violating the principle of sovereign equality and exceeding the treaty monitoring body mandate. The Committee’s ultra vires acts, though not directly legally binding, seriously affect the legal regime in states parties to UNCRC. They affect national law enforcement practice, changes to national legislation, and influence legally binding decisions by other international bodies.

Ultra vires acts by the Committee can seriously threaten the sustainability of international human rights framework, the sovereignty of states parties, cultural identity of their peoples, and the standing of the family, which is ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’ (Article 16 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and, therefore, by the international community.

For states parties to recognize the new CRC power by signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol would, in these circumstances, seem impractical and dangerous.

The Report points out that to remedy the situation created by the ultra vires acts by the Committee, legitimately concerned states parties can employ a number of means, such as:

• refusing to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure until a relevant reform of the Committee is taken place;
• exercising their right to issue interpretative declarations on UNCRC;
• exercising their right to point out the limits of the Committee’s mandate replying to its requests for additional information related to periodic reports;
• warning the Committee of the possibility of their denunciation of UNCRC in case a relevant reform of its activities does not take place;
• actively participating in reforming UN treaty bodies to bring their activities into strict conformity with their mandates, to give it greater transparency, and to bring it under more effective states parties control.

These means can, after due assessment of the consequences of their implementation, be employed at the discretion of states to protect the rights of their sovereign peoples, the family, and their cultural, religious, and moral identity.

Download the executive summary (pdf)