Igor Berezyuk, Ruslan Khubaev, and Kirill Unchuk, all members of the unregistered Other Russia party, have been sentenced to 5 and a half, 4, and 3 years in prison, respectively.

As lawyer Dmitri Agranovsky explained, the appeal refers to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. He and his fellow lawyers believe that the case against the activists was politically motivated and that their clients were not afforded this right.

They have also submitted a supervisory complaint about Berezyuk’s sentence in particular to the presidium of the Moscow City Court.

The three activists were sentenced on August 8, 2012, for inciting riots on Moscow’s Manezh Square in December 2010, when thousands of Russian citizens protested in a violent display of nationalistic fervor in connection with the killing of an ethnically Russian soccer fan by a non-Russian assailant. Anger was also directed at the police for supposedly releasing the suspect on a bribe.

The appeal comes at a time of increased international attention towards political persecution in Russia, largely due to the media sensation of the Pussy Riot trial this past summer. More complaints are sent to the Strasbourg Court from Russia than from any other country within the Council of Europe. Of those cases tried, the Russian authorities are found liable almost every time.

The Russian human rights organization Agora told Kasparov.ru on Friday that the court convicted Russia of violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Russia was convicted of the later offense.

The HIV-positive prisoner, who had been held in St. Petersburg’s famous Kresty prison, appealed to the Strasbourg Court in November 2005. His diagnosis came two days after his arrest on May 20, 2004, and the prisoner’s health began to decline that October.

When the prisoner appealed to doctors at Kresty for treatment, he was told to take aspirin, papaverine, and painkillers.

When the man tried to object that this type of treatment was clearly insufficient, he was threatened with solitary confinement, which he was placed in at the end of October.

Conditions in the solitary cell were deplorable: prisoners in neighboring cells confirmed that there was no heat, with temperatures in the winter dropping to 45-50 degrees Fahrenheit, along with no ventilation or hot water. Moreover, medical personnel rarely visited the area.

Medics at Kresty said that they “don’t have medicine for HIV-positive prisoners due to the lack of funding.” When asked for anti-retroviral drugs by the HIV-positive prisoner, they administered painkillers and added some extra sugar and margarine to his daily rations.

The prisoner was twice refused admittance to a hospital on the basis that there wasn’t enough space because of so many HIV patients already there.

The Russian government insisted in court that the prisoner had received adequate medical care. Officials said that he was regularly examined by competent doctors who carried out a series of medical tests on his blood, which, in their opinion, was sufficient to judge the condition of his health.

The Strasbourg Court pointed out that the patient lacks the necessary medical knowledge to know what drugs he would need to treat his condition without a doctor’s prescription.

Speaking to Kasparov.ru, Aleksandr Averin of the Other Russia’s executive committee said that the filing deals specifically with the first of the coalition’s Strategy 31 rallies – thus named for the 31st article of the Russian constitution guaranteeing free assembly – held on May 31, 2009. At the time, Moscow city authorities had refused to officially sanction the rally – a trend that continued with each of the proceeding rallies, which the coalition has held on the 31st of each month with that date. Taking part in an unsanctioned rally in Russia violates federal law, and each of the unsanctioned demonstrations have resulted in scores of protesters being beaten, detained, or both.

The Other Russia lawyer Dmitri Agranovsky asserts in the Strasbourg complaint that by banning the May 31 event, Russian government agencies violated three separate articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 6 – the right to a fair trial, Article 10 – the right to freedom of expression, and Article 11 – the right to freedom of assembly. If accepted for consideration by the court, the case may not be heard for years.

Many Russian human rights groups, journalists, and oppositionists often appeal to the Strasbourg court either after or instead of attempting to navigate Russia’s own judicial system – partially out of fears of corruption, and partially in hopes of gaining the binding mandate issued by the prominent European court. Along with the Strasbourg suit, the Other Russia is also filing suit against the Russian government in Russia’s Constitutional Court.

The coalition is also filing a separate case in Moscow’s Tverskoy Court regarding the most recent Strategy 31 rally held this past March. Rally organizers Lyudmila Alexeyeva, Eduard Limonov and Konstantin Kosyakin are arguing that the Moscow city administration’s refusal to sanction the rally is illegal under Russian law.

The coalition leaders also plan to appeal to Russia’s Constitutional Court.

Moscow authorities claimed that the rally would not be allowed due to “winter festivities” that were already scheduled to take place on Triumfalnaya Square, where the Other Russia has traditionally held its Rallies of Dissent.

This month marked the seventh time that the rallies were denied sanction by the Moscow authorities. Coalition leaders began holding the rallies in 2009 on the 31st of every month with that date , in defense of the 31st article of the Russian constitution guaranteeing freedom of assembly. Each has been banned under a variety of pretexts, but organizers have held the protests nevertheless.

“Most likely, it’s not the Moscow government that’s deciding our fate every time,” rally organizers said in Thursday’s statement. “Apparently, it’s the federal authorities that are making the decision, and this is a political decision that contradicts the constitution.” Among the organizers was 82-year old Lyudmila Alexeyeva, a former Soviet dissident and prominent rights activist who was among 60 people detained at the last rally on December 31, 2009. Each of the other protests has ended in a similar manner.

“You have turned Russia into a police state,” the statement continues, addressing the Russian authorities. “The citizens of Russia have been robbed of politics, robbed of elections at all levels: from governors to the deputies of local assemblies. We are trying to win back a small square.”

Beginning this month, regional Other Russia leaders will begin to hold the Rallies of Dissent in St. Petersburg, Astrakhan, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Omsk and Murmansk in addition to Moscow.

Organizers in St. Petersburg have already turned to the courts to defend their right to hold the January 31 rally. Officially, city authorities have banned the demonstration on the basis that it would block traffic around the central Gostiny Dvor shopping complex. Organizer Andrei Dmitriev maintains that the charge is contradictory, and says that while he hopes the courts will allow the protest, it will be held regardless of the judicial outcome.

Friday’s decision makes Russia the last and final member of the Council of Europe to sign the protocol, opening the way for the court to adopt a series of much-needed reforms.

Russian legislators initially refused to sign the protocol in December 2006, saying that the reforms would infringe upon Russian interests.

Specifically, the protocol would provide for a committee of three judges to decide whether or not to consider a complaint that had been filed in the court. Russian deputies also objected to a provision allowing the court to further investigate a complaint before it decided whether or not to take it under consideration.

Statements earlier in the week by State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov met with initial skepticism, with analysts fearing that the rhetoric echoed similar statements by Duma deputies that had previously gone unfulfilled.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has handed down a vast number of rulings against Russia for rights abuses. It has ruled against Russia more than 120 times in cases related to Chechnya alone. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the court of making “politicized” decisions.

According to the RFE/RL news service, the Duma’s decision to finally ratify the protocol is likely political. In particular, a pending $98 billion case from the former oil company Yukos against Russia that accuses the country of driving it into bankruptcy through unfair prosecution is a likely factor.

“The consideration of the Yukos case has been postponed for months on various pretexts. Now that all the possibilities of delays have run out, the ratification lever is being used,” says Russian political analyst Nikolai Petrov. “The Kremlin is interested in mollifying the European Court as much as possible by improving Russia’s image with the judges.”