Stop the Untouchables. Justice for Sergei Magnitsky.

Russia: Reforming or Unravelling

International Bar Association

Russia’s engagement with the OECD and WTO means rule of law reform should be imminent. Yet, the worst excesses of government control and human rights abuses suggest otherwise.

When Russia finally joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on 22 August 2012, after an 18-year-long hard-fought slog, there were many left wondering if the wait had been worth it – and whether membership would bring any significant change. In a year that saw Vladimir Putin embark upon his third term as the country’s president, it’s unsurprising that few things have changed since last ­­August. Changes that have been implemented appear largely at odds with the new era of transparency promised by WTO membership, instead suggesting some worrying consequences for the rule of law.

One of the most striking incidents to bring Russia’s rule of law into focus in recent years has been the highly publicised case of Moscow-based lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in pre-trial custody in November 2009. While it’s just one incident, Magnitsky’s plight continues to dominate the headlines worldwide and is as a stark reminder of Russia’s track record for human rights violations.

Indeed, as Russia’s WTO membership was being secured last August, the US Congress was also on the verge of voting in favour of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act 2012 (the ‘Magnitsky Act’), finally passing the law in November. This in itself was an important milestone since part of the law also required the US government to grant Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR).

The idea behind the PNTR bill was to once and for all revoke the Jackson Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 – an outdated Cold War era piece of legislation originally implemented by the US as a penalty against the Soviet Union for placing emigration restrictions on its citizens which prevented Russia from enjoying full trading relations with the US.

While the potential for improved trade relations between Russia and the US seemed, on the face of it, a positive step forward and in keeping with WTO rules which stipulate that member states must grant each other unconditional trading rights, a storm was already brewing.

In December last year, the Magnitsky Act was finally signed into law by President Barack Obama. The Russian government reacted strongly to the decision. It announced an outright ban on American adoption of Russian citizens and that it was proceeding with plans to try Magnitsky posthumously and, in absentia, Magnitsky’s client at the time of his death, founder of Hermitage Capital, Bill Browder. Once again the wider issues of corruption and human rights abuses in Russia, as well as the underlying flaws inherent in the country’s judicial and penitentiary systems, had reared their heads.

Many people, including Martin Šolc, name partner of Czech law firm Kocián Šolc Balaštik and Secretary-General of the IBA, have voiced strong concerns over the posthumous reopening of the criminal proceedings and what it may mean for the rule of law in Russia. ‘The whole case evidences how desperately the system, driven by clan instincts, tries to protect its people, regardless of what they may have committed,’ says Šolc. ‘If the clan is in danger, law does not seem to matter.’