(GDF/IFEX) – On 26 November 1998, a session of the Military Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was held examining the private complaint of Grigory Pasko’ s lawyers concerning the modification of measures imposed to secure the appearance of the defendant. At the session, the interests of the military journalist were represented […]
(GDF/IFEX) – On 26 November 1998, a session of the Military Board of the
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was held examining the private
complaint of Grigory Pasko’ s lawyers concerning the modification of
measures imposed to secure the appearance of the defendant. At the session,
the interests of the military journalist were represented by lawyers Mikhail
Marov and Karen Nersesyan, and also by public advocates Alexei Simonov
(President of the Glasnost Defense Foundation) and Alexander Tkachenko
(Director of the Russian PEN-Center).
**Updates IFEX alerts of 14 October, 21 May and 11 May 1998**
The essence of the private complaint by Pasko’s lawyers which initiated the
session is the following: The military journalist was arrested on 20
November 1997 and charged with high treason. Since that time, the accused
and his lawyers have presented petitions on eight separate occasions calling
for modifications to the measure securing his appearance. However, their
arguments have never been examined and the petitions have been dismissed on
the formal grounds that the law in question provides an opportunity to take
a suspect into custody as a measure to secure their appearance, owing to the
seriousness of the incriminating crime.
Meanwhile, as Pasko’s lawyers stressed in their complaint, the Russian
Federation Supreme Court’s plenary session explained that the seriousness of
the incriminating crime did not release courts from their duty to accurately
examine the validity of measures imposed to secure the suspect’s appearance,
nor did it deprive courts of their right to abolish or alter the imposed
measure.
In their complaint and in their speeches during the session, Pasko’s lawyers
convincingly demonstrated that taking Pasko into custody was not necessary
during the investigation, nor was it necessary to retain the defendant in
custody at the current stage of the case, with the investigation over.
Taking a suspect into custody is generally chosen as a measure when there
are reasons to believe that the accused will escape inquiry, preliminary
investigation or judicial proceedings, or that he can prevent establishing
the truth in the criminal case or can proceed with his criminal activities.
Pasko, as his lawyers proved convincingly, is no less interested in an
objective investigation into his case than prosecutors since he has no other
means of proving his innocence.
Pasko’s intention to cooperate with investigators became clear when his
materials were confiscated upon his return from Japan on 20 November 1997.
He made no effort to avoid security officers who immediately arrested him;
moreover, Pasko cannot hinder the investigation as it has already ended.
The defendant is not interested in provoking a breakdown of the trial or in
escaping from the judicial proceedings. This dismisses the main arguments
serving as grounds for his current custody. Pasko’s lawyers also pointed out
that the defendant is currently in a prison hospital because his year in
custody has badly affected his health.
The public advocate Alexei Simonov drew the court’s attention to the fact
that in St. Petersburg, under similar circumstances in a similar case, the
measure to secure the appearance of defendant Captain Nikitin was changed,
and this did not impede either the investigation or the trial. Simonov
called on the court to apply the same rules in Vladivostok which were found
acceptable in St. Petersburg for the defendant Nikitin.
Under the chairmanship of Mr. Ugarov, the Military Board judges heard the
arguments of the defence but the complaint was refused. Pasko remains in a
prison hospital, and the measure imposed to secure his appearance remains
unchanged.
The judges repeated the well-known procedural fact that in cases related to
extremely grave crimes, the law allows them to impose the measure securing
the appearance of a defendent, owing to the seriousness of the incriminated
crime. Thus, everything is being done in accordance with the law. GDF points
out that a modification of the measure would also be in accordance with the
law. The Russian Federation Justice’s decision to choose the most extreme
measures from among the existing legal range is cause for great concern. In
all likelihood, authorities find it more advantageous for the court to
administer justice to a sick and emaciated suspect imprisoned in Vladivostok
for over a year.