In brief
On 1 November 2025, Russia withdrew from the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture, a move it justified by asserting continued obligations under broader international law. The foreign ministry claimed that the 1984 Convention against Torture and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights still apply. The decision raises questions about Russia’s future engagement with European human‑rights mechanisms.
Russia withdrew from the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ECPT) on November 1 2025, after notifying the Council of Europe on October 30. The move ends Russia’s participation in the convention, which it had joined in 1998, but Moscow says it has not abandoned its duty to prevent torture.
Under Article 22 of the ECPT, a withdrawal becomes effective only after a one‑year notice. The Russian Foreign Ministry therefore confirmed that the convention ceased to apply to Russia a year after the notification, in accordance with the treaty’s provisions.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova issued a statement on November 3 saying the withdrawal does not mean Russia is refusing to fulfil its international obligations to prevent torture. Zakharova reiterated that Russia remains bound by other treaties that contain similar obligations.
Russia’s withdrawal from the 1987 Convention does not mean it is refusing to fulfil its international obligations to prevent torture. Russia has also assumed these obligations at a ‘higher,’ universal level: relevant provisions are contained in both the 1984 Convention against Torture and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In particular, the 1984 Convention against Torture obliges states to take effective measures to prevent torture and to cooperate with other states in investigating allegations, while the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Russia’s ratification of both documents predates its exit from the ECPT. The country has therefore continued to be a party to international instruments that establish prohibitions on torture, including obligations to report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture and to cooperate with international monitors.
The statement is meant to reassure citizens and observers that Russia will still honour its obligations under the global human‑rights framework, despite withdrawing from a Council of Europe instrument. It also signals that Moscow views its participation in the ECPT as a political, not a normative, choice.
Regardless of the withdrawal, the European Court of Human Rights and other international institutions may still examine cases involving Russian officials for alleged torture or ill treatment under other treaties. The move therefore carries no legal vacuum in the eyes of the international community, but it raises questions about Russia’s future engagement with European human‑rights mechanisms.
Established in 1987, the ECPT is Council of Europe’s core instrument for preventing torture across member states. It has 46 signatories and allows for state visits, on‑site inspections and the reporting of cases of torture. Russia’s participation since 1998 enabled the state to be part of a system that often scrutinises national prisons, juvenile detention centres and deportation facilities.
Officials say the decision stems from political tensions with the Council of Europe and dissatisfaction with the organisation’s perceived interference in domestic affairs. The foreign ministry has not publicly identified the specific grievances, but analysts point to Russia’s broader campaign to limit European oversight.
Within Russia, state media have framed the withdrawal as a move to protect national sovereignty and to re‑align the country’s legal commitments with its own norms. However, independent observers note that the country’s domestic anti‑torture mechanisms remain weak, with limited independent oversight and a lack of transparency in prison conditions.
European Union officials have expressed concern that Russia’s exit from the ECPT could signal a retreat from cooperation on human‑rights standards, while the United Nations Committee Against Torture welcomed Moscow’s affirmation that Russia still adheres to the Convention against Torture. U.S. State Department officials emphasised that the U.N. instruments maintain idempotence.
Even without ECPT membership, Russian individuals accused of torture can still be brought before international bodies such as the International Criminal Court or the UN Committee Against Torture under the 1984 Convention. Additionally, domestic courts may invoke other human‑rights norms, depending on the country’s legal framework.
The evolution of Russia’s engagement with torture‑prevention frameworks underscores a broader trend of state‑level renegotiation of international obligations. Whether the country’s adherence to the Convention against Torture will be effective in practice remains to be seen, but the withdrawal from the ECPT will test the resilience of European human‑rights institutions in the face of geopolitical shifts.
