Grigory Pasko: The Young Soviet President

The Young Soviet President Grigory Pasko, journalist Если Вы хотите прочитать оригинал данной статьи на русском языке, нажмите сюда. A month has passed since Dmitry Medvedev was seated on the Russian throne. Besides the trips he is entitled to by status, he now and then pronounces some kind of speeches, having to do with the internal affairs of the country. Sometimes he’ll blurt out something all of a sudden about the necessity of an independent court; at others, he’ll express concern out of the blue about the state of the penitentiary system… The other day, he discussed the problem of complaints to the Strasbourg court with human rights ombudsman Lukin. Probably because a number that had not that long ago been officially sounded had reached him: in the year 2007, the European Court of Human Rights had issued decisions on the recovery of 4.3 million euros in claims from Russia. Medvedev and his teacher (Source)

So what did the president and the ombudsman discuss in their pleasant chat? Turns out, it was that Russia’s «championship” for the quantity of applications to the European Court of Human Rights is associated with the fact that in Russia, it is simpler to file such a complaint than in other countries. “One of the reasons for the large quantity of applications by our citizens to the European Court of Human Rights is associated with the fact that we have a very liberal system of appeals with the corresponding complaints”, said Medvedev. “In a series of states, one needs to go through a huge quantity of instances before getting to the European Court.”Lo, wherefore art thou, those of ye who have been awaiting a thaw and democratization from this Medvedev? Behold the reaction of the new comrade president! He is not concerned about the quantity of complaints or about the overall situation with human rights in the country. No, what worries him is the speed with which one can go through domestic judicial instances.This latest lawyer reminds me of someone with his “legal” commentaries on our life…As a person who has been waiting for six years already for a decision of the Strasbourg court with respect to my own complaint, let me say: this is not a fast business. Neither in Russia nor in Strasbourg… So you’ve got no business whining about our supposedly liberal system: it’s not liberal in any way and has never been liberal for even one single day of its existence. Here we can recall also the situation with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Having serious legal support, an unlawfully convicted person has already done nearly five years behind bars and his application has still to get a chance to be heard in Strasbourg. Of course, the international court will find the persecution of Khodorkovsky to have been unjust. But by that time he will have spent not one more year, but many, in prison. Yet the newcomer president, instead of pardoning Khodorkovsky, expresses concern about the fact that Strasbourg is working too fast.Medvedev called the large quantity of complaints a “disturbing symptom”. Normal people, truly lawyers, would first and foremost come to a conclusion about the necessity of improving investigative, procuratorial, and judicial work in the country. In our situation, the two conversationalists converged on another one. “This process needs to be watched after”, said Medvedev. While Lukin, empowered by the state, proposed “creating a mechanism to resolve questions in a compromise manner prior to the European Court”.Damn, how simple everything is! Indeed, what could be easier? – create a mechanism! That is, yet another bureaucratic structure to hinder the passage of complains from Russia to Strasbourg.As a person who remembers the Soviet system of approvals-confirmations, I propose to comrades Medvedev and Lukin the following “screws” for their mechanism.First, three character references must be attached to each complaint: from the housing-and-public-utilities office, from the district department of internal affairs, and, naturally, from the party (for a member of «United Russia»). Note: complaints from non-party members shall not be accepted.Second, each applicant must attach three recommendations to his complaint: from the central organ of the FSB, from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as from the Procuracy-General of the RF.Third, the complaint must be confirmed by three instances: at a general meeting of the residents of the apartment building in which the appellant resides, at the place of work of the appellant (the unemployed shall not have the right to send an application to Strasbourg), as well as in the Public Chamber (it was created to do something, after all!).And finally, fourth, every complaint must be reviewed and signed personally by comrade Lukin.In principle, this should be sufficient to ensure that the appellant is dead and gone a long time before that happy and joyous day when his complaint reaches Strasbourg.Of course, I’ve also got, in reserve, a more radical variant than those proposed: the State Duma should simply adopt a law according to which all who apply to the Strasbourg human rights court would be equated with enemies of the people and would therefore compulsorily be subject to conviction for state treason.But that’s for an extreme situation. For now, it is sufficient for the State Duma to adopt a law prohibiting the relatives of an appellant from continuing to express interest in the passage of appeals through Russian judicial instances after the appellant himself has already returned his soul to God.Of course, the problem of all the Medvedevs and Lukins is that Russians have learned how to read and write. Were they illiterate, why, they wouldn’t be writing every which thing to every which place.…But all in all, Medvedev doesn’t cease to amaze me. I mean, supposedly, this person has lived 42 years in the country by the name of Russia. Supposedly, he should have at least shown some interest in how the people live. Supposedly, there are many things that shouldn’t surprise him. For example, the quantity of applications to Strasbourg and the quality of our courts. But no – he is surprised! Or maybe he’s just making believe that he’s surprised? That he cares? That he’s seeking ways of resolving the problems? If he really is seeking ways, then it’s somehow strange that he’s doing so by making the situation worse…Or maybe he’s been taught this by elder comrades? Especially one of them: this one teacher we remember well.