On June 15, 2022, the media outlet “Салiдарнасць”(Solidarity), blocked and prohibited in Belorussia and known for its Russophobe views, published a piece entitled “How in Belorussia may take place trials in absentia”, in which its authors are making an impression that they are trying to make sense objectively of the legal mechanism of trials in absentia. Bu the objectivity vanishes after the first paragraphs, when they take in the capacity of wrongly convicted Leonid Nevzlin, the fugitive ordering customer of murders. And as an example of infallible justice – it’s a legal idol of liberals and Russophobes – the European Court of Human Rights.
In order to add weight to his assertions, the author conducts an interview with Pavel Chikov, the head of the International human rights group “Agora” and a coach of the Moscow Helsinki Group. And then Pavel Chikov himself, without doubting for a moment, says that Nevzlin “was judged with violations”:
“The first cause selebre was against the former Yukos co-owner Leonid Nevzlin. In 2008 he was for the first time sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment in Russia on the charge of organizing murders, attempted murders and robbery.
Nevzlin, as a citizen, now lives in Israel, and he won’t be extradited to Russia. At the beginning of 2022, the European Court of Human Rights admitted that the Russian Federation has violated the right of a fair trial on his case, i.e. he was sentenced with violations”.
In this phrase, truthful is only the time of the session of the European Court of Human Rights, and all the rest is lie, which has been actively put forward by the fugitive soul-murderer himself.
The Judgement of the Court, the “defenders of Nevzlin” are referring to, is in public domain, and we have already studied it in detail, but we will once more remind of the facts that were presented at that particular sitting of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Let’s consider paragraph 115: “The Court was not provided with any other evidence in the case demonstrating that the judge had displayed bias”.
Let’s consider paragraph 119. In its essence, it refutes everything that was said by the press-service of Nevzlin. It holds, in particular: “In the present case the Court observes that, contrary to the applicant’s allegations, his conviction was based on a separate set of evidence, including witness statements given by perpetrators and victims who had testified about the applicant’s role in the imputed crimes during the investigation and at the trial”.
It means that despite any possible attempts to twist the facts by the “bloody claimant”, the ECtHR (in paragraph 119) does not place in doubt the decision of the Russian court, that had passed the verdict against Nevzlin.
One would think, there is nothing left to talk about, but, continuing the consideration of the judgement of the ECtHR, let’s discuss two more interesting and important issues in order to understand the real position of the ECtHR.
Paragraph 120 holds: “The Court finds that this complaint is unsubstantiated, as nothing in the hearing records confirmed the applicant’s allegations of pre-determined guilt. Overall, the applicant failed to provide any evidence in support of his allegation that the principle of the presumption of innocence had not been respected in his case”.
Paragraph 124 reads: “The Court has no reason to find otherwise in the present case, as it was not provided with any evidence of an alleged ulterior purpose behind the applicant’s criminal prosecution. Neither was the Court provided with evidence of alleged discrimination against the applicant during the proceedings…”
It means that, if we study attentively the decision of the ECtHR on this case, we can see that the Court, in fact, recognized some extremely important and essential points in the case:
- the judge was not biased (paragraph 115);
- the indictment of Nevzlin was based on a separate set of evidence indicating the role of Nevzlin in the crimes imputed to him (paragraph 119);
- with regard to Nevzlin, the presumption of innocence was observed (paragraph 120);
- the Court didn’t see any hidden purpose of the criminal prosecution (paragraph 124).
Therefore, “independent” lawyers like Chikov from “Agora” and mass media that constantly keep saying about their crystal-clear integrity and sincerity, simply lie, not play cunning, but just cynically lie.
This human rights defender of Nevzlin, the ordering customer of murders, could be satisfied, but the British handbook known in our country as “highly likely”, prevent Russophobes from quickly put an end to the dialogue. Pay attention to the following phrase of Pavel Chikov:
“I cannot recall any verdict taken in absentia against activists and journalists, but we assume that in the future such trials could take place, as criminal cases are being actively filed against those who don’t support the actions of the Russian army in Ukraine, and defendants are promptly leaving the country”.
There are no proofs, but this “human rights defender” simply can’t do without throwing mud at his native country. Noblesse oblige.
“Khodorkovsky and Nevzlin are paying – the ship of lie sails. By the way, Pavel Chikov, to my mind, has long deserved the rank of “a person executing the functions of foreign agent on the territory of the Russian Federation”, notes the website Prigovor.ru.Alexander Zhelnin
More details. Russian version at: «Чиков! Жалоба Невзлина в ЕСПЧ не обоснована»