 |
 |
|
|
In this connection the following issues arise: - why was Pichugin unlawfully held in the FSB's remand centre at Lefortovo? - why were FSB officers actively involved in his case, despite the fact that it was "commonplace criminality" and therefore within the remit of the Procuracy General? - why was Pichugin not given a prompt and proper medical examination for the presence in his body of a psychotropic substance? All of this leads us to believe that illegal methods were used during the investigation in Pichugin's case. But despite them all, he still failed to give the details of his "criminal exploits", or to identify the perpetrators or circumstances of the offences of which he was charged. This can only show that he was not complicit in any way. In view of the breach of such fundamental constitutional principles for the judiciary as transparency and openness, adversarial process, legality and justice, there is every reason to regard Pichugin's as a show trial. These breaches are so serious that each in itself is grounds for the verdict to be overturned. For a number of objective and subjective reasons this case attracted considerable public interest from the outset, not only in Russia but also abroad. Many linked Pichugin's case to Khodorkovskiy's, and Pichugin himself was described as a political prisoner. So the Procuracy General had a unique opportunity to demonstrate to the public in Russia and abroad, through a transparent and open judicial process, that bringing Pichugin to trial was legitimate and justified, and to refute claims that the case was political and brought to order. But it did not do this. Upon completion of the preliminary investigation the Procuracy General declared it secret, citing the presence of classified documents. A member of the Human Rights Commission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, paid a visit to Russia in September 2004. One outcome of this was a PACE resolution in January 2005 that noted deficiencies in the Russian Federation system of justice, violations of citizens' rights and freedoms, and the failure of the Russian authorities to observe the principle of equality for all before the law. It also noted that in the Yukos case the authorities were guided not by criminal law but a desire to enfeeble political opponents and regain control of economic assets. The resolution stresses that "the findings call into question the fairness, impartiality and objectivity of the authorities". In clause 17 of the resolution, PACE: "urges the competent authorities to ensure in particular that only those parts of the trial against Mr Pichugin that are directly linked to information for which there is a legitimate need for secrecy remain closed to public scrutiny, in view of the importance attached by the European Convention on Human Rights to the principle of open court hearings." By law, the court had every opportunity to openly and transparently hear the case in open session and only examine classified documents in closed session as and when required. This point was made repeatedly by Pichugin's defence team, including with reference to the PACE resolution quoted above.
|
« в начало
 |
