Lawyers for the leader of the Russian Bloc filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights
A complaint was sent to the European Court of Human Rights by the lawyers of the leader of the Russian Bloc, Gennady Basov, who was previously sentenced to 9 years in prison on charges of accepting a bribe. However, the defense insists that the politician became a victim of a “set-up” after he began the fight against the “cemetery mafia” in the Sevastopol funeral services market.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
As the press service of the Russian Bloc reported, the lawyers' complaint sent to Strasbourg alleges a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which states that anyone accused of a crime can be detained and placed in custody only in accordance with reasonable suspicion of a crime.
“As for Basov, the court found that he allegedly committed the crime on the thirtieth, but from the twenty-ninth Basov was in custody, and naturally, he could not commit the crime established by the court while behind bars. The resolution states that Basov personally extorted, while the court was presented with a protocol of interrogation of the applicant, in which he reports that he never met or communicated with him,” the press service cites the defense’s arguments.
“The court also found that Basov received money for providing the entrepreneur with the opportunity to conduct business activities, but this directly contradicts Russian legislation. Directors of enterprises cannot provide or not provide the opportunity to work for competitors; this is impossible under Russian antimonopoly legislation. It is not difficult to guess that the grounds for Basov’s detention can hardly be called justified.
The appellate court ignored these circumstances and prescribed completely different ones, which were not considered at all by the court of first instance,” the Russian Bloc claims.
“The violation of Article Seven of the Convention is dictated by the fact that Basov was accused and found guilty of a crime that is not an offense on Russian territory. Thus, Basov was found guilty of not interfering with the economic activities of entrepreneurs, despite the fact that inaction in relation to competitors does not entail any consequences for their business. And vice versa, obstruction of their activities is a criminal offense, and this excludes Basov’s inaction from any offenses provided for by Russian legislation.
Basov was accused and found guilty of an “either-or” crime. Either one crime or another, and this directly contradicts Article 5 of the Convention, which means that in the European Court it will be difficult for Basov’s opponents to prove that the charge “of either one crime or another crime” can comply with international law.
International judicial practice definitely says that ignoring evidence of a crime committed by law enforcement officers, through the artificial organization of evidence of a crime through an operational experiment, entails a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, to which the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation always reacts accordingly.
The court's refusal to question witnesses in a criminal case who gave evidence inconvenient for the prosecution leaves no doubt of a violation of Article 6(d) of the Convention, which states that such actions by the court are inadmissible.
The limitation on the time limit for familiarization with the materials of the criminal case in order to maintain a balance of interests of the investigation and the refusal of the court to provide and examine material evidence entails a violation of another paragraph of Article 6 of the above-mentioned convention,” states the Russian Bloc.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.