Ekho Moskvy Journalist Stabbed, Hospitalised in Moscow

No state reply yet
Year 23 Oct 2017 Country Russian Federation Category Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Source of threat Unknown Partner CPJ , EFJ/IFJ , Index Alert level Level 1
23 Oct 2017 Russian Federation Attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists Unknown CPJ , EFJ/IFJ , Index Level 1
No state reply yet

An unidentified assailant today broke into the Moscow office of Ekho Moskvy and stabbed Tatyana Felgengauer in the throat, the outlet's editor-in-chief, Alexey Venediktov, wrote on Twitter. Felgengauer, the deputy editor-in-chief and an anchor at the independent radio station, was hospitalised, according to media reports. Security staff apprehended the assailant, who is being questioned by police on charges of attempted murder, according to reports. Ekho Moskvy journalists have been previously targets of attacks and threats. In September 2017, one of the station's journalists, Yulia Latynina, reported that she had fled Russia after being attacked and threatened.

Updates

06 Jun 2018 : On 11 May 2018, Boris Grits who stabbed journalist Tatyana Felgengauer was recognized as mentally unfit to stand trial for attempted murder and relieved of criminal responsibility.
18 Jan 2018 : On 18 January 2018 Boris Grits’ detention was extended by the Presnensky District Court of Moscow until 23 April 2018.
24 Oct 2017 : On 24 October 2017 the Presnensky District Court of Moscow ruled to keep Russian Israeli citizen Boris Grits in custody until 23 December for the attempted murder of Tatyana Felgengauer.

Follow-ups

24 Oct 2017 : OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media condemns attack on Ekho Moskvy journalist.
23 Oct 2017 : CoE Secretary General appalled by violent attack against Russian journalist calls for the attack to be thoroughly and quickly investigated.

CONTACT US

Follow us   

Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.
Twitter feed Twitter feed
Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Partners Partners

CONTACT US

Follow us