Zoya Svetova’s Talk

ZOYA SVETOVA: I was late, and in addition to those criteria that have already been mentioned, I would like to say something else, which I feel is important that it be understood and which this distinguished gathering will have to decide on. I want to speak about that danger in which we now find ourselves. We, that is to say those who have long been working on the issue of political prisoners.

As far as I know, two or three lists have been handed over to the Presidential administration. It is the list, received by the Council of the President (led by [Mikhail] Fedotov), the list issued by the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners and the list of Natalya [Kholmogorova]’s supporters. Right? Perhaps some of the lists have been fused. Now that so many different voices are heard, everything is a complete mess and nothing is clear. In today’s Novaya Gazeta Irek Murtazin wrote let’s quickly recall this list because it’s not clear what’s happening. I believe such defeatist moods are entirely unnecessary. There is no need to recall the list, but it is clear that certain issues must be solved.

Not wishing to dwell for too long, I want to say the following so that it is clear to all of us, Russia has no independent judiciary. This means that in Russia there are no courts! This is why it is so difficult to draw up a list of people whom we describe as political prisoners. The list from the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners seemed more or less acceptable to me, although it included people whose cases I am personally not aware of. The preliminary list which Lev Ponomarev brought to the League of Voters. If we were to take the classical notion of political prisoners, in it are included prisoners of conscience and no one else. There are National Bolsheviks, people sitting in jail solely for their beliefs. Just about all the others have no outstanding political convictions. If Mikhail Khodorkovsky were to clearly have his own, nothing is known of the convictions of those from the Yukos company, hostages to his case.

Sergei Adamovich [Kovalev] may correct me here, but when comparing with Soviet times, the powers’ very nature has changed. If ideology used to be important for the power, today, and please excuse the expression, it is only gain and loot. And so the majority of those jailed who we consider political prisoners, such as scientists accused of espionage, are behind bars simply because they crossed someone else’s path. In their cases, it is the FSB who demand their imprisonment, while in others these may be individual officials from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who also benefit from exaggerated cases. The orders for these cases always come from those people who are close to the authorities.

That is why we have such a “patchy” list of political prisoners. Half in jest, there is a pair of every possible creature. Scientists-“spies,” Chechens arrested and convicted on the sole basis of being Chechens, all while Russia was at war with Chechnya. A classic example is that of Zara Murtazilieva. At the time of her arrest she had no convictions, yet she is a political prisoner. I know her case very well and I have every right to say so.

How can we now get out of this situation? As far as I know, Vladimir Ryzhkov will continue to press this theme and stress that political prisoners must be freed during his meeting with Medvedev. I don’t know if you will support me or not, but I feel that a form of Supreme Advisory Council, comprising of competent individuals, should be founded. At the moment I’m not sure how these people will be elected. We have heard what Sasha Cherkasov and Natalaya [Kholmogorova] have had to say here. Someone considers Tikhonov and Khasis as political prisoners, while others absolutely do not. Lawyers whom we may trust, who may provide their conclusions on these cases to us, must be elected to this Advisory Council. You may say: “This will take a long time, and people will still be sitting in jail.” Of course there are clear cases and very complex ones. Those such as Tikhonov and Khasis’ case, Arakcheev’s and others’. The foundation of an Advisory Council must be very carefully considered. But it must take place now. It must be stated that these cases will be discussed and reviewed. Because we cannot allow this list to sow confusion in society. I believe this is very important. It will help us get out of the situation in which we all find ourselves. May mess and confusion continue to reign in minds. May someone continue to speak about political prisoners, someone about wrongfully convicted prisoners, but demanding the review of these cases is an absolute must.

So who will be the judges reviewing this cases? Undoubtedly the scope of the work is both enormous and extensive. But let us first create this Council and properly examine these cases. Because while what was available on the respected site of the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners is a fine job, there was no examination of each of these cases.

Continue to Oleg Orlov’s Remarks ›

Back to the Table of Contents ›