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

Yaroslav Leont’yev

YAROSLAV LEONT’YEV: Good evening. The main positive result of today’s meeting, despite the number of problems, is the very fact that a dialogue has been held, where different points of view may be compared. I believe that this is only the very beginning of a broad and difficult conversation. This

YAROSLAV LEONT’YEV: Good evening. The main positive result of today’s meeting, despite the number of problems, is the very fact that a dialogue has been held, where different points of view may be compared. I believe that this is only the very beginning of a broad and difficult conversation. This is long overdue, and the time is ripe for other public discussions, for example identifying the boundary between nationalists and Nazis, and others. Many questions are arising, and not only are they about what a political prisoner is. It is a very vague term. But the term “human rights defender” is also a vague one.

The Human Rights Center “Memorial” and reborn Human Rights Center “The Russian Verdict” have been around for a while. Their very appearance is normal, but some uncertainty still prevails. As a historian I can certify that when there emerges a tradition of political human rights protection, the efforts to define the status of a political prisoner are relevant. In Russian history, the “Narodnaya Volya” were the first to acquire such a status and consistently defend it. Without prior arrangement, the Narodovol’tsi founded their political Red Cross (the name has been modified). They appealed to the Geneva Convention of 1864, treating their prisoners as soldiers of the revolution, fighting the establishment of the day.

In recent European history, it’s almost as if there aren’t any political prisoners. But I would like to then ask, what about the Rote Armee Fraktion? The Red Brigades in Italy and the IRA were also mentioned here, the Irish Republican Army? I agree that it all has to do with public opinion; it defines for itself in a certain historical period what a political prisoner is.

I will dare to argue with Mr. Borshchov, who said that the majority does not consider Tikhonov and Khasis as political prisoners. Maybe it is only fair to say that for this audience. But I believe there is a considerable community recognising them as such for a few reasons, from ignorance to outright ideological support. Such opinion was formed by lawyer Vasiliev and Natalia Kholmogorova, who are present. Now about the definition in this case; were there any political motives on the authorities’ part? There were undoubtedly. If Tikhonov and Khasis were convicted, let’s assume, not for those acts they did commit, their verdict would have regardless still alluded to their membership of an organised crime group. As you may know, he [Tikhonov] kept the group’s entire arsenal of weapons, and the use of two pistols, rather than one, was probably intended for various murders. There are doubts, but the evidence seems to stack up. Public opinion must decide if they correlate

SERGEY KOVALEV: Why public opinion?.

YAROSLAV LEONT’YEV: Sergey Adamovich, please understand that given the context of the situation, it may help resolve...

OLEG ORLOV: The time limit is approaching.

YAROSLAV LEONT’YEV: The last two circumstances. Another example is the case of Sergey Klimuk, which was not so long ago heard about at a conference in the Independent Press Centre. There are big questions about the compiled evidence, an interview with the convicted Klimuk himself has been posted on the internet in which he openly talks about his involvement in the explosion at the Cherkizovskiy market. If that were to be falsified, why hasn’t he denied it himself?

And the last thing, and on this I’ll finish. Such cases as the Tikhonov and Khasis one, will undoubtedly serve as barometers and stumbling blocks upon their review in a future experts’ council. The historical parallel here is of course the Beilis affair. I hope such a council may be formed in the future, otherwise it will not play a part in such cases with marked cards. It will not proclaim Tikhonov as a public figure, something which he has never in any form been.

There was a wonderful Russian nationalist, Vasily Vitalievich Shul’gin, who was unconvinced by what was happening around the Beilis case... (Noise in the hall).

OLEG ORLOV: Yaroslav, you’ve been speaking for over 10 minutes, I’ll have to turn off the microphone. We still have six people left, each of whom are restricted to five minutes. Please do not go beyond the limit. Please excuse me. Maksim Gromov.

Next

Back to Overview of Part II

Поделиться: