The Last Hostage. Vera Vasilieva in her Radio Liberty website blog discusses Alexey Pichugin’s case
June 19, 2020
Today is the 17th anniversary since former Yukos staffer Alexey Pichugin’s arrest. In her Radio Liberty website blog, journalist and human rights activist Vera Vasilieva discusses Alexey Pichugin’s case and its latest developments.
The Last Hostage. Vera Vasilieva – On the Pichugin Case, Again.
June 19, 2020
Today marks 17 years since former Yukos staffer Alexey Pichugin was jailed. Memorial Human Rights Centre and other human rights organizations consider Pichugin a political prisoner and prisoner of conscience; the European Court of Human Rights twice ruled that Pichugin was convicted and sentenced to life in prison uconvictedwitwiwithout a fair trial guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even some of the false witnesses on whose testimony Pichugin’s life sentence was based have long admitted to lying.
But this made no difference to the Russian authorities – neither the courts nor the country’s top leadership. On June 4, the Orenburg commission on pardon issues headed by Orenburg Region’s authorized human rights representative Anatoly Chadov denied Pichugin’s pardon request which Pichugin (for the third time, without admitting guilt) addressed to Vladimir Putin. The denial was reportedly unanimous.
According to the report recently published by Memorial on the situation with politically motivated criminal prosecutions in Russia, “some groups (of political prisoners) actively persecuted in the 2000s were no longer targets of large-scale political persecution in the 2010s; this includes other people named in the Yukos Affair (except Alexey Pichugin, who is serving a life sentence). This does not mean, however, that methods the ruling authorities use against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, his companies, partners and employees changed in principle.”
Pichugin was denied pardon the same day that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe issued yet another – sixth (!) – resolution regarding the former Yukos staffer. That document states that the Russian authorities have still not implemented the European Court judgments in Pichugin’s case. The more staunchly Russia creates an impasse (e.g. by refusing to implement the Strasbourg Court’s rulings that Pichugin’s verdicts are to be reconsidered), the more insistent the Committee of Ministers’ suggestions to Moscow regarding a way out of the “dead end” with minimal losses to all parties. If Russia doesn’t reconsider the unlawful verdicts, pardoning Pichugin would give Russia a chance to heed ECHR’s recommendations, at least to some minimal extent. The Kremlin doesn’t even have to acknowledge that Pichugin’s trials were unjust, because when a convict is pardoned, the issue of his guilt or innocence is not examined; pardon takes place out of humane considerations. Russia has until November 30 of this year to report to the Committee of Ministers on measures taken.
No matter what flowery papers Russia ends up sending to Strasbourg, I believe “our response to Chamberlain” has already been given – in the form of Pichugin’s pardon denial. Some might say it’s pure coincidence that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasburg met the same day as the Commission on Pardon Issues in Orenburg. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I think it’s an expression of two diametrically opposed approaches to human rights and humanitarianism. One is the European approach, where such values are held in high regard. The other is the Russian approach: the convict or even someone the authorities see as undesirable loses his human status and becomes part of the “special contingent.” The way I see it, Russia consciously follows a behavior model that’s totally indecent in a civilized world, seeking to show where exactly it believes all these human rights are to be found [sic].
The Committee of Ministers plans to resume the examination of measures regarding the last Yukos Affair hostage no later than March 2021. If Russia doesn’t implement the Resolution provisions by then, it’s quite likely that infringement proceedings will be brought regarding our country’s violation of its commitments under the European Convention. Shortly before the June session, Memorial petitioned the CMCE to bring such proceedings.
Memorial’s lawyer Tatiana Glushkova explained that Memorial requested that the Committee of Ministers ask the European Court [to determine], per Convention Article 46(4), whether the situation at hand violates [Russia’s] obligation to abide by ECHR judgments. Glushkova says that CMCE brought such proceedings just once before – in the Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan case, resulting in Mammadov’s parole. Glushkova said that the Azeri activist and opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov was persecuted for covering unrest in the town of Ismailly in his blog. In 2014, he was convicted and sentenced to 7 years in prison for organizing mass unrest and resisting arrest. ECHR found that presumption of innocence was violated in Mammadov’s case; that he was persecuted for political motives. As a result of the proceeding, Mammadov was released.
Some (e.g. members of the pardon commission in Orenburg) falsely state that Russia can’t release Pichugin due to the special gravity of the criminal law articles he was convicted under. It’s also false that this is why Russia doesn’t accept international organizations’ directives. To the contrary – a few years ago, it was due to an ECHR ruling that an Applicant in Laryagin and Aristov v. Russia was released despite having been sentenced to life in prison. To ECHR, it wasn’t the Applicant’s guilt or innocence that was important, nor the facts of the criminal case – it was the fact that the right to a fair trial was breached (jury composition turned out to be unlawful). And the RF Supreme Court set aside the verdict in that case – maybe because there were no political undertones, in contrast to Pichugin’s case?
Clearly, as time goes on, the European community will pressure Russia even more in Pichugin’s case for refusing to perform its international obligations. It’s wrong to state that ECHR and CMCE interfere in Russia’s internal affairs: after all, these organizations don’t examine criminal cases and domestic court rulings on the merits, they simply act within the framework of the European Convention which the Russian Federation has recognized. Therefore, the European Court is just as “foreign” as a Russian court. And Russia readily accepts and uses these international mechanisms – as long as decisions are issued in its favor. But as soon as Russia loses, it starts saying Europe is making moves on Russia’s sovereignty.
Frankly, I don’t understand why Russia doesn’t want to use the option suggested by CMCE as a way to heed the Strasbourg court’s ruling – namely, pardoning Pichugin. It’s inhumane, irrational and pointless. Human rights advocates call Alexey Pichugin the last hostage of the Yukos Affair, and it’s been long clear that Mikhail Khodorkovsky won’t stop his public activity – so annoying to some – because a hostage is being held at the Black Dolphin [prison]. Despite the clear lack of respect Russia demonstrates to international law norms, CMCE is again suggesting a way for our country out of this controversy while still saving face. But is there any face left to save?
Source: Radio Liberty, The Last Hostage. Vera Vasilieva – On the Pichugin Case, Again.
