Responsibility of Russia and Poland for the Smolensk Catastrophe from the Perspective of European Convention on Human Rights

Smolensk Catastrophe is not only about the question of clarifying facts, but also the one of responsibility stemming from them on the grounds of European Convention on Human Rights, and being more precise from its art. 2: The right to life. The article includes both negative obligations, such as the prohibition of depriving an individual of life, as well as positive ones regarding the establishing of effective regulations in criminal law, providing legal and administrative procedures aiming at e.g. preventing the acts of life deprivation, including the ones referring to procedural obligations concerning the conduct of a proper and effective investigation. Responsibility is shared by both parties of the Convention: Russia and Poland. The first of them ought to be responsible for depriving the Catastrophe casualties of their lives, not only in the event of an attack and explosion, but also in the context of TU 154 renovation, the manner of organizing the visit, dividing it between 7th and 10th April 2010, the level of securing the quality of service at the North Smolensk airport, conducting the investigation and keeping the evidence (the wreck, black box, etc.), which made it impossible for Poland to conduct the effective investigation. Poland, on the other hand, is responsible for the lack of applying appropriate legal and administrative procedures, as well as preventive and controlling measures, inappropriate conduct of aviation investigation by Military Prosecutor Office, as well as the lack of an effective investigation indicated in art. 2 of the Convention. Poland ought to be held responsible also for the manner of organizing the visit. The responsibility of a state on the basis of the Convention includes detecting, pursuing and punishing individuals responsible for actions and cessations determined as a punishable offence of negligence and not fulfilling ones duties. Therefore there certainly was the situation of breaching the material and procedural obligations stemming from art. 2 of the Convention.