Geneva International

Tatyana Moskalkova’s tenure as the Russian Federation’s Human Rights Commissioner exemplifies the broader systemic challenges facing human rights protection in Putin’s Russia. Under her leadership, the institution has come under severe scrutiny both domestically and internationally for its apparent lack of independence and inability to address key human rights issues.
The Russian ombudsman system, theoretically created to ensure state accountability, has instead been subsumed under the centralized control of the government. The ombudsman, like many other institutions in Russia, operates in a climate where loyalty to the state often takes precedence over adherence to international human rights standards. This subordination is reflected in Moskalkova’s handling of rights violations in Russia, where she routinely downplays or ignores politically sensitive cases, especially those involving state repression of opposition activists, protests, or crackdowns on civil society.

• The Decline of the Ombudsman Institution

The shift towards authoritarianism in Russia under Putin has severely undermined the effectiveness of the ombudsman. International observers, including the United Nations and European human rights bodies, have consistently raised concerns about the erosion of institutional independence in the country. For example, UN reports have highlighted Russia’s growing repression of dissent and civil society. The Russian ombudsman office under Moskalkova, instead of acting as a check on state abuses, has been complicit in reinforcing the government’s narrative, particularly in high-profile political cases and the context of the war in Ukraine.
The removal of Russia from international human rights bodies like the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) further demonstrates the international community’s disillusionment with the state of human rights in Russia. As noted by ENNHRI, the Russian ombudsman office no longer functions in line with the goals and activities of promoting human rights in Europe. This expulsion underscores the extent to which the office has become an instrument of state policy, rather than a defender of the Russian populace’s rights.

• The Impact on Russian Citizens

For ordinary Russian citizens, the ombudsman office’s inability to challenge state power effectively means a diminished capacity for recourse in the face of abuses. Under Putin’s regime, crackdowns on free speech, assembly, and political participation have intensified, with high-profile cases such as Alexei Navalny’s imprisonment, media censorship, and the repression of opposition groups reflecting the country’s deepening authoritarianism. Moskalkova’s failure to advocate for the victims of these actions signals to the Russian people that the state’s interests outweigh individual rights.
Reports from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch corroborate this, showing how the Russian government has tightened its grip on civil liberties. The ombudsman’s office has often acted as a rubber stamp for Kremlin policy, undermining public trust in its ability to provide protection. This is particularly relevant in contexts like the ongoing war in Ukraine.

• Ombudsman’s work during the war

Moskalkova’s role during the ongoing war in Ukraine further exemplifies her alignment with state narratives rather than genuine human rights advocacy. Instead of condemning acts of aggression and human rights violations, her office has often focused on justifying Russia’s military actions and downplaying the impact on civilians. This complicity not only serves to reinforce the Kremlin’s position domestically but also undermines international efforts to hold Russia accountable for its actions in Ukraine. By neglecting the suffering of those affected by the war, Moskalkova’s approach reflects a broader trend of using the ombudsman office to legitimize state policies, thereby prioritizing loyalty to the regime over the protection of human rights.

• Prospects for the Future

In the current political climate, the future of the ombudsman institution in Russia looks bleak. As long as political loyalty supersedes legal mandates, the prospects for genuine human rights protection remain dim. Many analysts argue that for the institution to regain credibility, significant reforms are needed, including greater autonomy from the government and stronger engagement with international human rights mechanisms.
Nevertheless, Moskalkova’s removal from international ombudsman networks signals a growing isolation of Russian institutions on the global stage. Without internal or external pressure for reform, the likelihood of any substantial change within the ombudsman office remains low, especially as Putin’s government continues to prioritize state control over democratic processes.
For everyday Russian citizens, this means that the ombudsman will continue to serve as an arm of state power, rather than a bulwark against it. Human rights defenders and civil society organizations, often targeted by the regime, are thus left with few institutional allies within Russia itself.

• What’s next

Tatyana Moskalkova’s tenure as Human Rights Commissioner in Russia is emblematic of the broader struggles facing human rights protection in the country. Her office, far from being an independent defender of citizens’ rights, has instead become a tool for the state to legitimize its actions and suppress dissent. As long as the ombudsman remains aligned with the state rather than acting as a check on its power, human rights in Russia will remain at risk. International isolation of the institution is growing, and unless there is a significant shift in both domestic governance and international engagement, the ombudsman will continue to lose relevance as a true advocate for justice.

Mykola Volkivskyi, Researcher, The Kosciuszko Foundation Scholar