By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KIROV, Russia – The embezzlement trial of prominent opposition leader and anticorruption blogger Aleksei Navalny, 36, began last Wednesday for forty minutes, only to be adjourned for a week to give the defense more time to review the twenty-nine-volume case file.  The trial, taking place in Kirov, a twelve hour train ride northeast from Moscow where Navalny and others interested reside, is the first against such a high-level opposition figure since Soviet times.  Navalny established himself as the most eloquent of the protest leaders with a huge Internet following with sharply-written blogs [eng] and corruption exposes.

Accusing President Vladimir Putin of orchestrating the trial, Navalny claims the best outcome he can probably expect is a suspended sentence, which would still render him ineligible for public office; he had expressed an interest earlier this month in one day running for the presidency.  Before heading to Kirov Navalny said, “I think it’s clear to any objective observer that I’m not guilty.”  However, he continued, “I am absolutely certain that it will end in a conviction for me.”

Chief among the accusations against Navalny is the theft of 16 million rubles ($510,000) from a timber firm in Kirov, when he was working for Kirov’s governor.  If convicted, the crime carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  Regional Investigators twice looked into the alleged theft and closed the cased in Navalny’s favor for lack of evidence, only for the case to be reopened by Moscow.

Furthermore, Navalny has also been accused of stealing 100 million rubles ($3.2 million) from the now-defunct Union of the Right Cause Party, unlawfully privatizing a distillery in the Kirov region, and, along with his brother Oleg, defrauding a local branch of cosmetics maker Yves Rocher.

The images painted by the charges contrast strongly with the man who first came to prominence by exposing corruption in state-controlled companies on his blog and with published articles.  Navalny went on to publicize the undeclared properties and bank accounts of government officials.  Officials no fear the idea of being exposed in his blog.

Additionally, a fifth investigation was opened on Thursday, after the adjournment, as Navalny was traveling back to Moscow by the twelve-hour train.  The new investigation alleges Navalny and his convinced the Multi-Industry Processing Company (MPK) into signing a disadvantageous contract with them, and then pocketing the money.

According to Political analyst Pavel Salin, investigators had been ordered to assemble an “ironclad” case. “Four charges weren’t enough, so they created a fifth,” he said; suggesting the government pressured MPK into filing the complaint.

Navalny has dismissed the charges as “ridiculous” and, believing the public to be the fairer judge, posted all the case materials online.  He explained that “There are bank documents, and we show those documents to everybody: to the investigation, to the public, to everyone. And everybody, apart from the investigation… said, ‘oh God this has been totally fabricated.’ But the investigation is not interested in this.”

Should Navalny be convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison.  Even if he receives a suspended sentence, he would still lose his law license, from which he derives most of his income, and would be ineligible to ever run for public office, as dictated by a sweeping elections reform bill recently granted preliminary approval.

Navalny is certain that the charges against him are politically motivated, designed to silence him over his criticism of Putin.  Earlier this month, a spokesman for Russia’s Investigative Committee admitted in an interview that normally local authorities would have handled “banal embezzlement” investigations, but Navalny’s  case became federal because of Navalny’s fierce antigovernment activities.  Vladimir Markin said when someone “teases the authorities,” it attracts the Investigative Committee’s attention and the case is expedited.

Although Konstantin Zaitsev, the senior official at the court, denies governmental pressure for a guilty verdict—”If there is no proof, he will be acquitted”— Navalny’s prospects for acquittal do not look good.  More than 99 percent of Russian trials end with a guilty verdict, and the presiding judge, Sergei Blinov, has issued 130 guilty verdicts and no acquittals in the last two years.  Furthermore, Judge Blinov has refused to hold any preliminary hearings, which Navalny’s lawyers say is illegal.

However, Judge Blinov did grant the defense a week adjournment to better prepare, although the defense had requested a month.  The trial will resume on April 24.

Russian media has portrayed Navalny’s popularity bleakly, pointing out that many people outside urban areas are unfamiliar with him.  However, his core among the middle class and urban youth is strong.  Nevertheless, his recognition is growing, and this trial will not only increase Navalny’s name, but send a message the Moscow is afraid of a blogger with a cult following who made himself first known attacking corruption online.

“About thirty per cent of people here have heard of him, and of those, only a few know the details of the case,” says Nikolai Lyaskin, one of Mr Navalny’s associates, explaining the political climate in the Kirov region as the trial began. “It’s not a case of being pro-Putin or anti-Putin, people have just been put into a state where they simply don’t care about politics and assume that everyone is cynical and corrupt. We are trying to tell them that here they have a chance to look at things for themselves and make up their own minds.”

Even so, as Navalny’s trial began, he received much support from opposition leaders and government critics.

“Everyone who came here today knows that Navalny is innocent of the charges that the state has filed against him. But we also know that despite his innocence, he will be convicted,” human rights leader and former dissident Lyudmila Alexeyeva, 85, told the crowd in Kirov.

Opposition lawmaker Dmitry Gudkov, who was also in Kirov, condemned the trial.  “I came here to support Aleksei because I think this case is political and the investigation is biased. The case is being fabricated in front of our own eyes,” Gudkov said.

Opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was also present in the courtroom.  “There was no transgression [in Navalny’s actions], period,” he said. “It is all an order from above, it is all about politics; it is all about revenge. They just want to jail him to scare the others and, of course, to neutralize Navalny himself.”

Finally, Navalny told reporters: “We will definitely win this case. No matter what the ruling is, I am absolutely confident that we will prove our innocence and it will be clear to everybody that this is a political trial.”

For further information, please see:

Moscow Times – New Charge Makes Five Against Navalny – 19 April 2013

RFE/RL – Russian Opposition Leader’s Trial Adjourned In Kirov – 18 April 2013

The Independent – ‘This Case is Nonsense’: Defiant Anti-Corruption Blogger Alexei Navalny Goes on Trial as Vladimir Putin Brings his Biggest Critic to the Dock – in Russia’s Dissident Heartland – 17 April 2013

Moscow Times – Ahead of Trial, Navalny Has Jail Bag Packed – 17 April 2013

RFE/RL – The Trial Of The Decade – 16 April 2013

RFE/RL – Russia Admits Politics Played Role In Navalny Case – 12 April 2013

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – The Russian Interior Ministry recently announced their intent to seek an arrest warrant for Bill Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management. The arrest warrant regards charges of “stealing” energy company, Gazprom, shares a decade ago and “interfering” in Gazprom’s policies.

However, this case has no legal basis because there were never any crim­i­nal sanc­tions for own­ing Gazprom shares.

Browder, who once led the biggest foreign investment fund in Russia, quarrels with the Russian government amidst his campaign to blacklist Russian officials involved in the death of Hermitage lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.

Jamison Firestone, Magnitsky’s former boss and a close associate of Browder in lobbying for the blacklists, stated, “This is a pure vendetta and everyone knows it. If it was really illegal to buy Gazprom, every Western hedge fund manager in Moscow would already be on the way to the airport.”

Another Hermitage Capital representative said, “The retroactive and arbitrary application to one market participant of a criminal standard in relation to a practice that is considered lawful for all other market participants is the hallmark of a politically-directed abuse of justice in this case.”

Furthermore, “President Putin treats the law and the truth like a child in a sand­box. There are no rules. There is no law, and he thinks he can do whatever he wants. This may be true in Russia, but it is not true elsewhere in the world.”

The Interior Ministry affirmed that if Browder’s arrest is endorsed, he will subsequently be placed on the international wanted list.

The Interior Ministry continued, “As the accused Browder is evading arriving for investigative procedures, even though he has been notified about this necessity using various methods, the investigation has filed a request with a court on considering his arrest in absentia as a pretrial restrictive measure. If a court grants this request, the mechanism of declaring Browder internationally wanted will be launched.”

Hermitage Capital Management stated that the warrant “follows a coordinated Russian state propaganda campaign in the last three months, where all Kremlin-controlled TV channels, including NTV, Rossiya, and 1TV ran slanderous programs accusing Mr. Browder of murders, stealing IMF money in 1998, causing the Russian default, stealing Gazprom shares, and being a UK spy.”

Nevertheless, the Moscow court refused to issue the warrant because Mr. Browder was not given enough warning about the proceeding. The Russian Criminal Procedure Code states that arrests cannot be ordered for a person before he or she is declared internationally wanted.

The court will review the request again in a week.

This will be the second known case of an ‘in absentia arrest warrant’ concerning a Westerner in Russia.

For further information, please see:

Law and Order In Russia – Russia Interior Ministry Seeks Arrest Warrant for Bill Browder in Putin-directed Retaliation Against Magnitsky List – 17 April 2013

The Moscow Times – Browder Placed on International Wanted List – 17 April 2013

Russia Beyond the Headlines – Russia Seeks Arrest in Absentia for Magnitsky Boss Browder – 17 April 2013

The Telegraph – Russia Puts Hermitage Boss Bill Browder on Wanted List – 17 April 2013

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – In May, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will mark its 20^th anniversary.  During two decades, the tribunal issued indictments against 161 persons for crimes committed against tens of thousands of victims in the former Yugoslavia.  However, as this benchmark approaches, activists and diplomats alike reflect on the achievements and limitations of the ICTY.

Created by UN Security Council resolution in May 1993, the ICTY was the first international court since the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials at the end of World War II.

Since then, the court has now begun to wind down, with only three cases left on its docket, and no new indictments since 2004.  Its most recent high profile indictee, Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, died in 2006 in custody before a verdict was reached.

A look back at the ICTY has been sparked by a controversial debate on the ICTY held by the U.N. General Assembly earlier this month after former Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, currently president of the General Assembly, called for the debate.  The discussions, characterized as one-sided, prompted a walkout by the U.S. delegation, while senior Serbian officials used the debate to bring allegations that the court was essentially an “inquisition” directed against Serbia.

Jeremic said in opening the session, “The paramount question is how international criminal justice can help reconcile former adversaries in post-conflict, transitioning societies”

However, Judge Theodor Meron, president of the ICTY, had previously criticized the planed debate, saying it “pose[d] questions in terms of fundamental respect for the rule of law,” and that “It is not a [debate] in which my participation would make any significant contribution to the norms which I hold dear.”

The ICTY was also criticized in November, when it acquitted on appeal Croatian ex-Generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, who had been sentenced to jail for significantly contributing to a Joint Criminal Enterprise through their roles in a 1995 offensive to drive Serbian rebels out of the Krajina region with unlawful artillery attacks on four towns.  However, the appeals chamber found the evidence insufficient to show the artillery attacks were unlawful and therefore overturned the convictions and ordered the men’s release, prompting angry reactions.

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, explains the desirability of reviewing the ICTY to set the record straight: “There’s a need for a review because we are approaching the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the tribunal,” he says.  “It’s essential and responsible to do a careful, thoughtful, critical review. Everyone who is committed to bringing justice for these crimes — to seeing victims get redress — wants the system to work better.”

One of the main criticisms of the court has been the slow proceedings.  Dicker suggests future war crimes trials should look into issues of expediency while still respecting the rights of the accused to a fair trial.  Phillippe Sands, a professor of law at University College London and a lawyer involved in the international courts, says the ICTY’s early delays reflected that the court was in “new, untried, untested waters.”  “There is a broad recognition that in some of the cases, the initial charges — both in terms of investigation and actual prosecution — were probably too great, too large, which meant that the trials ran on. The judges reacted, and I think they sent certainly signals to the prosecutor’s office to be more narrowly focused,” Sands explains.

Another criticism has been the handling of evidence and lengthy testimony by the court.  For example, in the Milosevic case, the defense was permitted to call an enormous number of witnesses, dragging the trial out for years prior to Milosevic’s death.

The ICTY also needed to merge criminal doctrine from divergent legal systems.  “For example, the treatment of evidence is very different in the civil-law countries like France, or Italy, or Germany on the one hand, than it is in a common-law country like the United Kingdom, or the United States, or South Africa, or India. So you’ve got a sort of coming together that inevitably slows things down,” Sands said.

It also took time for the ICTY to truly appreciate the needs of justice and reconciliation of the victims and diverse peoples of the Balkans.  Dicker explained that, “The tribunal did not have an outreach program until close to the year 2000. That effort to explain what it was doing was never funded out of the UN budget, but in fact, was funded by voluntary contributions from states and private individuals.”  And although there were high hopes that the court would foster reconciliation, Geraldine Mattioli-Zeltener, the advocacy director in the International Justice Program of Human Rights Watch concedes that “Reconciliation is a very tall order for a court of justice.”  Unfortunately, rulings by the ICTY may have created more fractioning between the Serbs, Bosnians, Croatians, and Kosovar Albanians than reconciliation.

Interestingly, an area in which the ICTY showed success was in overcoming the language barrier— often one of international law’s greatest difficulties.  Translation in the ICTY remains faster than in the newer International Criminal Court, whose language must change with each case, because the ICTY mostly works in three languages: French and English—the two working languages of the United Nations—and “BCS”— Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.  (Note, when addressing crimes committed in Kosovo and Macedonia, the court temporarily will also work in Albanian and Macedonian.).  Although the internal politics of the “BCS” language are complex, its institution has allowed for high-quality, quick translations, at close to the speed of monolingual dialogue.

Prosecutors before the war crimes court also met the challenge of prosecuting a crime without the ability to investigate the crime scene.  Senior Trial Attorney Peter McCloskey described how his office received assistance in this area from NATO and “crazy journalists” who had discovered mass graves on their own.  Prosecutors also experienced difficulty during the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Kosovo with a lack of available records.  Nevertheless, in two decades, the court has managed to accumulate millions of pages of documents and thousands of witness statements and dossiers.

Despite the shortcomings that present themselves alongside the ICTY’s achievements, the tribunal has marked a significant milestone for international criminal law.  As  Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed earlier this month in front of the U.N. General Assembly, “Impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and other serious international crimes is no longer acceptable, nor is it tolerated.  Where once [victims] might have gone unheard, left to suffer in silence, today they have a platform.”  He further emphasized the sanctity of the Court’s rule of law: “It means implementing their decisions. And it means safeguarding them from those who seek to undermine them for reasons that may have more to do with politics than justice.”

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – Justice Activists Call For ‘Serious’ Review Of UN War Crimes Court – 16 April 2013

UN News Centre – Assembly Stresses Role of International Criminal Courts in Fostering Reconciliation – 10 April 2013

RFE/RL – ICTY President Criticizes Serbian-Organized UN Debate – 4 April 2013

The Economist – Laws in Translation – 25 March 2013

Friedrich Naumann Foundation – Bringing War Criminals to Justice and Justice to Victims: FNF Visits the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) – 19 March 2013

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – This past week, gay rights groups gathered in Amsterdam to greet Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Rainbow flags flew at half-staff, floats crowded the canals, and thousands of protesters waved signs.

Putin visited Amsterdam to encourage the growing economic ties between Germany and the Netherlands. The Netherlands is Russia’s leading trade partner in Europe.

Amsterdam deputy mayor, Andrée van Es, claims the city appreciates trade and welcomed Putin’s visit. However, the city also supports the rainbow flag protests.

Van Es stated, “We see Russia as an important trading partner, but Amsterdam has an identity of what I call hyper-diversity… and we very much want to be able to express that, even to our important trading partners.”

She continued, “A lot of people are worried about human rights in Russia in general, but focus is very much on gay rights because of that bill.”

Recently, Putin claimed there was no discrimination against homosexuals in Russia. However, the Russian parliament passed a bill in January banning the dissemination of “gay propaganda” to minors, which includes parades, protests, and the use of the rainbow flag. The law could potentially fine offenders up to $16,000.

Although the evening started as a protest, the night quickly turned into a party. Thousands assembled across from the museum where Putin was dining. Dressed in rainbow colors, the crowd waved signs that said, “Putin go homo” and “I’m a person, not a propaganda”.

However, as many protested and partied, the city took steps to prevent overwhelming behavior. One sign said, “No gay rights propaganda beyond this point.” Another stated, “Do not frighten President Putin: keep this area human rights free.”

As a response, activists used fake police tape, which read “critical journalists not allowed”, to block off access to the museum.

One of Amsterdam’s deputy mayors stated, “We have a large gay community in Amsterdam and we want to make sure that in our city that everybody can live the way they want and be whoever they are and we want to make sure that everybody in the world knows that.”

Putin was also recently met in Germany with topless demonstrators. Women, from the Ukrainian feminist group, Femen, displayed slogans on their bare chests and backs. Furthermore, the females chanted, “dictator”.

After shrugging off the German protests, Putin stated, “I liked it. You should be grateful to the girls, they are helping you make the fair more popular.”

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – Amsterdam Welcomes Putin With Rainbows – 15 April 2013

EuroNews – Thousands Protest Putin’s Amsterdam Visit – 9 April 2013

FoxNews – Gay Rights Groups to Protest Russia’s Putin in Amsterdam – 8 April 2013

The Washington Post – Gay Rights Supporters Gear Up to Protest Putin Visit to Amsterdam – 8 April 2013

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – Following the United States’ release of the 18-name Magnitsky List on Friday, Moscow released a corresponding list of 18 Americans banned from traveling to the Russian Federation over their alleged human rights violations.

Among the American officials on the Russian list are David Addington, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney and provided legal support for interrogation policies; John Yoo, a high-ranking Bush administration lawyer who wrote several major opinions on torture; and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller and Rear Adm. Jeffrey Harbeson, both of whom commanded detention operations in Guantánamo Bay.

The remaining fourteen U.S. officials on the list are primarily prosecutors and special agents whom Russia believes responsible for violating the rights of Russians abroad.  Most were involved in cases against convicted arms dealer Viktor Bout or recently sentenced drug-trafficking pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko.

Those on the list are only banned from travel to Russia, an endeavor most would not normally be engaged in anyway.  Yoo merely mocked the Russian’s move, quipping, “Darn, there goes my judo match with Putin.”

The Russian list was created under the authority of the Dima Yakovlev law, which came into effect in January and also ended American adoption of Russian children.

According to an interview Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov gave to the Itar-Tass news agency, the list also contains a “secret” addendum of more names, as the U.S. list reportedly contains.

The Russian government defended its answer to the U.S. Magnitsky List, gravely explaining that its actions were merely a justifiable response.

“We would like to draw particular [attention] to the fact that, unlike the American list compiled arbitrarily, our list features primarily those implicated in torture and the indefinite detention of prisoners in the Guantanamo prison camp, as well as those involved in the abduction and removal to other countries of Russian citizens and in threats to their lives and health,” Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

“This war of lists was not our decision, but we do not have the right to ignore such open blackmail,” it continued. “It’s time for the politicians in Washington to finally realize that it is fruitless to base a relationship with a country such as Russia on an attitude of mentorship and overt dictation.”

Moscow has maintained the opinion that the Magnitsky Act and List release by Washington directly interfere with Russian domestic issues.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the Magnitsky Act an “absurd” law that “delivers a strong blow to bilateral relations,” while President Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that “the Magnitsky case should not be discussed outside Russia, it’s unacceptable.”

Despite the list war, the United States intends to continue to work with Russia on issues of mutual interest, according to White House spokesman Jay Carney.  However, Carney made clear that, “[h]uman rights is an issue that we have disagreements with [Russia] on at times and, you know, we are very frank and candid about that. And we will engage with the Russians on those issues as well as the others that we have.”

Even so, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian State Duma’s international affairs committee, warns that the list war “will be present, possibly, for a very long time in our relations and will poison them.”

The full list (courtesy of RT) released by Moscow on Saturday is as follows:

US officials purportedly involved in legalizing torture and indefinite detention of prisoners:

1) David Spears Addington, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (2005-2009)
2) John Choon Yoo, Assistant US Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (2001-2003)
3)  Geoffrey D. Miller, retired US Army Major General, commandant of Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), the organization that runs the Guantanamo Bay detention camps (2002-2003)
4) Jeffrey Harbeson, US Navy officer, commandant of Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), the organization that runs the Guantanamo Bay detention camps (2010-2012)

US officials purportedly involved in violations of the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens abroad:

5) Jed Saul Rakoff, Senior US District Judge for the Southern District of New York
6) Preetinder S. Bharara, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York
7) Michael J. Garcia, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York
8) Brendan R. McGuire, Assistant US Attorney
9) Anjan S. Sahni, Assistant US Attorney
10) Christian R. Everdell, Assistant US Attorney
11) Jenna Minicucci Dabbs, Assistant US Attorney
12) Christopher L. Lavigne, Assistant US Attorney
13) Michael Max Rosensaft, Assistant US Attorney
14) Louis J. Milione, Special Agent, US Drug Enforcement Administration
15) Sam Gaye, Senior Special Agent, US Drug Enforcement Administration
16) Robert F. Zachariasiewicz, Special Agent, US Drug Enforcement Administration
17) Derek S. Odney, Special Agent, US Drug Enforcement Administration
18) Gregory A. Coleman, Special Agent, US Federal Bureau of Investigation

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Russia Hits Back at US with its Own Blacklist – 13 April 2013

BBC News – Russia Responds in Kind to US Magnitsky List – 13 April 2013

New York Times – Russia Bars 18 Americans After Sanctions by U.S. – 13 April 2013

RIA Novosti – Russia Publishes Its Answer to Magnitsky List – 13 April 2013

RT – Russia Strikes Back with Magnitsky List Response – 13 April 2013