A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (abbreviated as ECtHR) must be properly implemented on a national level. For that reason, supervisory mechanisms of the Council of Europe will be used. When the ECtHR delivers a judgment against a state, it is passed on to the Committee of Ministers, which is entrusted with a task of supervising enforcement of a final judgment. The Committee of Ministers finds whether the State has taken all necessary measures to comply with obligations imposed by a final judgment. If the State has fulfilled all obligations, the Committee of Ministers shall adopt a final resolution. The UK and Russia are countries that have strongly defined authority of the ECtHR in the recent years. In several occasions, both states refused to enforce judgments. In Russia, they adopted controversial Federal Constitutional Law of 14 December 2015 no. 7-FKZ that has enabled the Constitutional Court to assess compliance of judgments of the ECtHR with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the Constitutional Court finds that a judgment of the ECtHR is not in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it may prevent execution of a judgment. For many years, the UK has defied execution of a judgment in the case of Hirst v. the UK by delaying adoption of legislative changes that were required by the ECtHR. Failure to enforce judgments is a common point in both countries. In the UK, resentment against the ECtHR remains at political level. While in Russia, they implemented legislative changes with clear intention not to implement unconstitutional judgments of the ECtHR. If we want an effective system of human rights protection, we must continue to strive toward consistent implementation of judgments of the ECtHR.