CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

ELMIRA LYAPINA CYIL 14 (2023) his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.” The reinterpretation of such rights inspired not only other regional courts, but also international organizations, such as the UN HRC and WHO, as through their reports, strategies, and discussion papers, the idea was developed of environmental sustainability as a substantive human right to environment, inspiring states to take a similar approach. 22 Regional conventions have also received new interpretations of human rights since the end of the 1990s. In the first decade of the 2000s, the European Court of Human Rights provided several landmark decisions in this direction. In its approach, the ECtHR was strict about the state being accountable and liable not only for environmental sustainability, but also for any foreseeable natural disasters related to the preparedness of the state and its effective response in prevention, including sustainable management and enforcement of such standards, as well as protection of human rights, and also the proper investigation and judicial enforcement of these measures. In 2008, state liability in foreseeable natural disasters within the right to life was considered in the case Budayeva and Others v. Russia . 23 In this case, the applicants sustained injuries and psychological trauma and lost their homes as a result of a natural disaster (mudslides). The Court held the violation of Article 2 of the ECHR by the Russian authorities in failing to implement land-planning and emergency policies in the hazardous area and in the foreseeable risk to the lives of its residents, and in failing to conduct an adequate judicial inquiry into the disaster. The ECtHR emphasized specifically the potential risks to human lives and their level. While considering right to life within the provision of Article 2 of the ECHR, the Court considered the positive obligations of the state concerning the governance and supervision of activities, including preventive and practical measures to achieve the effective protection of people who are endangered by environmental risks. The particularity of the chosen measures by the state, as well as the scope of the positive obligations, shall depend on the predictability and origin of such environmental risks, as well as the extent of actions necessary to minimize such risks. The Court considered the state accountability for the breach of its positive obligations, because the state failed to implement sufficient preventive and practical measures, starting with normative regulations and finishing with the insufficient or ineffective control of their fulfillment, which gave rise to negligent conduct and led to foreseeable damage and risks to the lives of the people, leading to other violations of their human rights (§ 61 in Stoyanovi v. Bulgaria). 24 The European Court, however, did not only address Article 2, the right to life, but also connected the rights to the environment with other fundamental human rights within the ECHR. Thus, for example, in 1998 it assessed environmental risks and access to information within Article 2, as well as Article 8’s “right to respect for applicant’s private and family life” in the case of Guerra and Others v. Italy, 25 in which the Court held that the Italian state had 22 See for example UN Resolution 48/13, The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: resolution / adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 8 October 2021, available on https:// documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G21/289/50/PDF/G2128950.pdf?OpenElement. 23 Judgment of the ECtHR in Budayeva and Others v. Russia , 2008, Application Nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02. 24 Judgment of the ECtHR in Stoyanovi v. Bulgaria , 2010, Application No. 42980/04, § 61. 25 Judgment of the ECtHR in Guerra and Others v. Italy , 1998, Application Nos. 116/1996/735/932.

194