Anchugov and Gladkov Case and the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Bodies of the Constitutional Control of Foreign Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of the content of Part 3 Art. 32 of the Constitution, which enshrines the prohibition citizens held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court sentence to participate in the electoral process. The author highlights some features of electoral rights formulated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated July 4, 2013 in the case "Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russian Federation": the right to vote is not a privilege; presumption in favour of inclusion (universal suffrage should be the main principle); the availability of good and compelling reasons for restrictions of the electoral rights of prisoners. The author considers the legal position laid down in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2016 No12-P regarding the applicability of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The article analyses foreign practice of dealing with similar cases: United States Supreme Court decision in "Richardson v. Ramirez" (1974); the practice of the Supreme Court of Canada ("Belczowski v. the Queen", 1991; "Sovje case", 2002); the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa in "August and others v. Electoral Commission, and others"(1999); the practice of the Supreme Court of India ("Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) v. UOI Ors&." 2004; "Rama Prasad Sarkar v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors., 2011). The author considers in detail the reasons for a series of rulings by the European Court of human rights, preceding the decision against the Russian Federation (the case of "Hirst v. United Kingdom", 2005; "Frodl' Prouty Austria", 2010; "Skoppola v. Italy", 2011). The author supports the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the non-applicability of the judgement of the European Court of human rights in the Russian Federation due to contradictions presented by interpreting the provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it