FRIEDERIKE BEHR: I would like to reply to Oleg Petrovich Orlov’s first comment, which he said before the coffee break. You didn’t quite understand me, it’s as if we recognise all of those who commit politically motivated crimes as political prisoners. Of course we don’t distinguish Tikhonov and
FRIEDERIKE BEHR: I would like to reply to Oleg Petrovich Orlov’s first comment, which he said before the coffee break. You didn’t quite understand me, it’s as if we recognise all of those who commit politically motivated crimes as political prisoners. Of course we don’t distinguish Tikhonov and Khasis, convicted under Russian legislation, from common murderers, and we do not consider them as political prisoners. On the other hand, we did recognise that Khodorkovsky had been persecuted not for political motives, but for the authorities’ arbitrary economic motives. That is why he is not only a political prisoner, but even a prisoner of conscience.
It was already mentioned here several times, but all the same I want to repeat that laws which curb all possible forms of human rights have no place in a lawful state. There are many examples of the awful effects of such laws. From the pogroms against Jews in Tsarist Russia to the Rwandan genocide, egregious cases of crimes against humanity.
A small remark. I do not consider the decisions of the Shanghai Agreement to be an international instrument for the protection of human rights. Thank you.
Continue to Natalya Kholmogorova’s Remarks ›
Back to Overview of Part III ›