Progress and ongoing concerns in protecting legal capacity in Russia
From a human rights standpoint, there have been notable improvements in how Russia handles support for people with mental health challenges. Yet reports indicate that the practice of depriving capable adults of legal capacity remains more common than it should be. A leading figure in the Civil Commission on Human Rights, Tatyana Malchikova, noted to a media outlet that in about 95 percent of cases where legal capacity was removed, a psychiatric hospital had urged the court to deprive the individual of rights, and the court had agreed. This underscores a persistent pattern in which the courts often accept the hospital’s assessment without robust corroborating evidence.
Malchikova recalled that the situation used to be almost absolute in favor of deprivation when a psychiatric hospital requested it, with acceptance around 99.9 percent. She described a recent decline to a range around 95 to 97 percent, attributing the improvement to a sustained education push aimed at legislatures, courts, and legal professionals. The effort focused on highlighting the clear human rights violations that arise from proceedings that proceed without the public being aware or involved. She pointed out that there are many such cases in which the rights of adults are curtailed while still legally capable.
According to the President of the Civil Commission on Human Rights, current law does not require the psychiatrist to prove incompetence in order to initiate proceedings. In practice, a psychiatrist may present a single document of a psychiatric examination, and the court may accept it without additional legal evidence. Malchikova cited examples of courts where incapacity cases receive only a brief review, sometimes as short as eight to ten minutes, describing this as a conveyor belt that relentlessly deprives people of their legal capacity.
Malchikova highlighted that a number of courts are overwhelmed with hospitalization cases and with petitions to deprive individuals of legal capacity. People often reach out to the Civil Commission after they or a family member has left a psychiatric facility or after a relative has been deprived of rights. She described cases where a judge handled a large volume of filings in a single day, raising questions about how fair and thorough such determinations can be when there is pressure to process many cases quickly. The concern is that a small number of judges may be repeatedly assigned to these matters, which can skew outcomes and raise concerns about due process.
Readers can learn more about the Civil Commission on Human Rights approach to these cases, including how Russia has addressed concerns about psychiatric hospitalization and the potential for individuals to lose rights. The discussion also touches on current proposals and conversations about informing law enforcement and state authorities when psychiatric diagnoses are involved, and how these issues are reported in ongoing coverage of human rights concerns.
The broader context includes earlier research indicating that a passive lifestyle can be linked with higher risks of depression, underscoring the multifaceted factors that impact mental health and legal capacity. This context reinforces the importance of safeguarding civil rights while ensuring appropriate medical oversight and humane treatment for individuals with mental health needs, free from coercive and arbitrary removals of rights.
In summary, while progress has been made, the system still faces significant challenges in ensuring that legal capacity is protected and that any deprivation is justified by clear, thorough, and fair judicial processes. The ongoing dialogue among human rights advocates, legal professionals, and medical practitioners seeks to build stronger safeguards that prevent rights violations while respecting public health responsibilities.