ПЦ «Мемориал» незаконно ликвидирован. Сайт прекратил обновляться 5 апреля 2022 года
Сторонники ПЦ создали новую организацию — Центр защиты прав человека «Мемориал». Перейти на сайт.

Kirill Podrabinek

KIRILL PODRABINEK: Good evening. I’m going to read a text published five years ago, but which perhaps hasn’t lost its relevance today. Together we’ll decide on that... Who is a political prisoner? The range of answers to this question is fairly broad. Some set two groups: political prisoners and

KIRILL PODRABINEK: Good evening. I’m going to read a text published five years ago, but which perhaps hasn’t lost its relevance today. Together we’ll decide on that...

Who is a political prisoner?

The range of answers to this question is fairly broad. Some set two groups: political prisoners and proper prisoners of conscience, others classify terrorists as political prisoners who acted on political motives. Some people tend to reject this term outright, hoping for the introduction of a new and broader understanding. There is also a view that not all political prisoners should be protected.

Such discord is accompanied by two conditions; there have been a lot of complicated cases since Soviet times, when political persecution was a grey topic. In a case there may well be criminal and political elements.

The vagueness of the term “political prisoner” indicates ambiguity in the public consciousness: who and what should be protected? It goes without saying that a definition is necessary or highly desirable. But definitions are not in themselves interesting, but serve instead as prerequisites for action.

I’ll take a chance by proposing the following definition: “A political prisoner is a person in custody, whose human and/or civil rights have been substantially violated as the result of a politically motivated persecution.”

From this definition it becomes clear who can be protected and to what extent. One can make two clarifications. A political prisoner is in need of protection there where his human and/or civil rights have been violated. The act is not a criminal one if it is in accordance with his human and/or civil rights. It goes without saying that a number of circumstantial facts cannot be squeezed into this definition, and every definition allows for clarifications. The clarifications prompt new questions. This definition is related to that of human rights, an area that has been studied and continues to be studied. There may be different interpretations concerning the political motives, but here there is a space for bringing together varying points of view.

The need for a permanent structure for the protection of political prisoners is only more obvious.

The current situation is markedly different from that of the Soviet era. In the past there was no need to provide any specific evidence to prove, say, that Alexander Ginzburg and Yury Orlov were political prisoners. Now such evidence of the political character of the persecution of such and such individual on the state's part is necessary. The present day is rich in borderline situations. Society as a whole and the human rights community, in particular, do not share an elaborated point of view in regards to the grounds and criteria for the term “political prisoner.” Such uncertainty reflects the attitude of the judicial institutions vis-a-vis the situation.

The political and economic interests of various human rights and social groups smear the credibility of their statements and arguments in defence of the innocence of victims of persecution. In the country there is not one single voice who may trusted for his legal impartiality in assessing the situation of political prisoners.

It makes sense for Western institutions to have an ongoing and focused dialogue on political prisoners in Russia today. A striking example is how Russian human rights defenders addressed to “Amnesty International” and its decisions on a series of cases. Ignoring the requests of smaller and separate groups for a permanent structure is easier than validating a legal and judicial point of view and providing evidence.

And of course, these findings must be ratified by the human rights community. It is not effective to gather every time for the protection of a person persecuted for political motives. A permanent structure must:

  • Develop a set of criteria for the term “political prisoner,” why is he in need of protection and to what extent.
  • Apply such criteria taking in account legal and political analysis of the situation, with the assistance of experts.
  • Draw well-grounded conclusions in every studied case, for their consideration by a wide range of human rights defenders.
  • The results should be transmitted to the public and state institutions (if a person hasn't been considered as a political prisoners so they shouldn't)
  • Conduct an ongoing dialogue with analogous Western institutions
  • Initiate and support campaigns in support of political prisoners.
  • The need may rise for such a structure to become more specialised and focused on the protection of victims of political persecution. An important number of former political prisoners must also be involved in this work, people who have personally experienced acute difficulties, but that does not mean others such as lawyers, human rights defenders and public figures can be discounted.

Thank you for your attention.

Next

Back to Overview of Part II

Поделиться: