Friederike Behr's Talk

FRIEDERIKE BEHR: The organisation “Amnesty International” was founded fifty years ago for the purpose of protecting prisoners of conscience. People who were imprisoned for expressing their political or religious views and beliefs. Also those who were persecuted for their membership in a certain social group, for example a sexual minority. “Amnesty International” then gave a clear definition of the term “prisoner of conscience” and to this day adheres to it. Borderline cases are examined in detail, and a decision is taken only after careful consideration of all the circumstances.

Among prisoners of conscience we may find a person whose views are unacceptable to us. For example, someone who denies the Holocaust. Unfortunately for us, if necessary, we must recognise such people as prisoners of conscience, as it is the fundamental position of our organisation.

Contrary to popular belief, this goes to show that “Amnesty International” does not take into consideration the traits of the individual's personality nor his beliefs. Most significant are the illegal persecutions of a person for his religious or other beliefs. Of course, we do not restrict our protection only to those who we consider to be good people. “Amnesty International” demands the immediate and entire release of prisoners of conscience. This is an integral and extremely effective part of our work.

We have also been working on other topics, such as the abolition of the death penalty, prohibition of torture and ill-treatment and so on. We also oppose the unjust sentences for political prisoners. In our opinion, political prisoners are people whose cases contain a significant political element. This may either be as a result of the person's desire, or that of the state persecuting him.

In this context, the term “politics” has a broad meaning. Prisoners of conscience are thus immediately political prisoners. But not all other political prisoners are innocent people. This term also applies to those people who have committed crimes. We recognised the Baaden-Meinhof Group in Germany as political prisoners, solely because they were subjected to harsh prison conditions. Others who had been convicted of murder in Germany were not subjected to such conditions. We were similarly involved in the conviction of a member of the terrorist organisation “Túpac Amaru” in Peru. In this case, however, we did not demand an immediate release. We demand the release of people who have not committed violent crimes. More precisely, those who have not been accused of carrying out violent crimes. If a person is unfairly and politically accused of committing non-violent crimes, we often either demand their release from custody until a fair trial takes place. This does not mean that we support the innocence of this man. We merely emphasise that he has been unfairly treated and it is important to release him before the international justice system is made aware.

How do we define who is a prisoner of conscience, and who is not? As I previously stated, there are fairly precise criteria here. As for political prisoners on a whole, there is no such precise criterion. We have protected many people, among them clear prisoners of conscience and people who have committed murder, even those who have been insidiously deprived of their places of residence. Except for those who have been lawfully and justly sentenced for terrorism or piracy and are held in normal conditions. Humanism – a prerequisite of the rule of law. There where fundamental human rights are flouted, let alone those of a criminal lay my own rights; the rights of a law-abiding citizen are also under threat.

As Sergey Davidis said, where there is such a thing as political prisoners, it is clear that there are serious problems with justice. The situation in Russia is characteristied by a deep distrust of the judicial system. In various media, judges even admit to being pressured from above and that their decisions are not always independent. If the defendant is found guilty, many are subsequently heard saying that he is probably innocent. People just do not believe that the investigative authorities and courts are capable of honestly carrying out their work. One may raise the Tikhonov-Khasis and Budanov cases here. It is possible to discuss the ineffectiveness of the judicial system and society's complete lack of confidence in it when the issue of “political prisoners” is concerned. Although it is better to answer these complex questions by addressing the issue of criminal justice reform.

We believe the list of political prisoners may only be discussed in the context of other problems. We believe that the discussion of the cases of several people may act as an argument for the effective reform of the judicial system and exposure of the problems that contribute to this process. I remember the examination of this matter in the Council of Europe in 2001, where it was established, much like now, that a wide spectrum of possibilities and criteria exists under which a person may be a political prisoner. Perhaps for the upcoming discussion it would make sense to mention these principles and criteria for political prisoners.

That would be a) if a person's detention were used for the goal of violating one of his fundamental rights and freedoms, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as its additional protocols. In particular the articles on the protection of freedom of speech, conscience and religion, exchange of information, freedom of assembly and rights to association.

b) if a detention was carried out for clear political reasons, the person having committed no crime.

I believe these two points refer to the notion of “prisoners of conscience”.

c) if a detention on political grounds takes place in such prison conditions which are not proportionate to the offence for which the person is convicted or suspected of committing

d) if a detention was made on discriminatory grounds.

e) if a detention was carried out in clear violation of procedural guarantees and at the same time was linked to the authorities' political motives.

This was approved in May 2001. Perhaps this can be used.

Continue to Natalya Kholmogorova’s talk ›

Back to the Table of Contents ›