Pavel Grishin
PAVEL GRISHIN: On the issue of political prisoners, I assume that those decisions which will be taken regarding the list, will later materialise into political demands. Whatever follows, it is necessary to make a list with concrete demands for these people. As for the chances of putting forth
PAVEL GRISHIN: On the issue of political prisoners, I assume that those decisions which will be taken regarding the list, will later materialise into political demands. Whatever follows, it is necessary to make a list with concrete demands for these people. As for the chances of putting forth demands for their release, there are two. One is the hope of an amnesty or pardon for certain groups of people. The second one is a review of the cases.
A very small group of people may agree among themselves on the inclusion or exclusion of someone, but the list must be shown to the public. And it must be clear to the public why certain demands have arisen in relation to certain people. An idea was pronounced here, that of the creation of some sort of experts’ council, which would define whether these people really committed crimes or probably did not. Thus the council will begin to play the part of a court, which doesn’t seem right to me. I suggest simply creating a list of cases where there are reasonable grounds to suppose that there were serious violations which could have had an influence on the sentence. This list should be named as such, so as to avoid the dilemma of “political prisoner/not political prisoner” and avoid saying that there are bad or good political prisoners.
Tikhonov and Khasis were named here as possible political prisoners, and for many people this is painful to hear. Although many think that too many serious violations were allowed in their case. Regardless of whether they are guilty or not, their presence in the list must be reviewed. It is also worth noting the need for the full abolition of Article 282. In my opinion, it is impossible to convict someone on the basis of his words, except for the mentioned rebel, who perhaps didn't kill anyone himself, but his actions and orders led to crimes. At the very least we can introduce a moratorium on these articles until the legislation is reviewed and acquire some frames. At present, a court's decision on these articles may depend on the opinion of some expert, who really isn't responsible for anything. In fact, there have been no precedents where experts are involved in clearly flawed judgements.
Anybody can be jailed for any pronouncements under these articles. Someone said for instance, I cannot vouch for its accuracy: “Down with the Government of Slaves.” Some phrase like that, for which the person was charged under Article 282.
Another question does not relate to specific political prisoners, but as I am only speaking of political demands, it is possible that we might need to compile a list of judges, prosecutors and investigators found guilty of fabricating criminal, as well as administrative cases. Thank you.
Next ›