A Russian reminder

28 September 2010 by

Sutyagin

I attended a talk this morning given by Igor Sutyagin, a nuclear scientist who was detained for 11 years on charges of treason. He was released in July as part of the high-profile spy-swap with the United States.

Hearing Sutyagin’s description of the Russian justice system, as well as the “gulag” he was sent to for over a decade, brings into focus the enormous difference between legal systems within Europe. In the UK we can confidently expect that courts and judges will uphold the rule of law and act with impartiality. Whilst there are notable exceptions, our legal system has checks and balances in order that poor decisions can be weeded out. That system is imperfect but at least it is predictable and, on the whole, fair.

Sutyagin’s says his experience was anything but fair. He spent 11 years in detention including the time before and after his conviction in 2004 for spying for the United States. He has always protested his innocence (see this recent BBC interview). Notably, during his years as a researcher he never had access to secret documents, and he always maintained that the “classified” information which he was accused of passing to foreign sources was publicly available.

After his arrest in 1999, Sutyagin spent five years in detention and was the subject of three criminal trials, before he was finally convicted and sentenced to 15 years in 2004. This morning he described his extreme surprise when, after the break-down of his first trial, the judge suggested that the prosecutor find more charges to bring. Charges were brought and dropped until eventually he was convicted.

During his time in prison, he was listed as a political prisoner by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and he recalled the support he received from strangers who wrote him thousands of letters. He eventually signed a confession as part of the prisoner-swap process, having relentedbecause of his family and because he was told that otherwise the entire exchange of prisoners would be cancelled “.

Grigory Pasko, who interviewed Sutyagin and is himself a former political prisoner, said that the justice system in Russia was unlikely to change under the current regime. Amnesty International agree that there are significant problems: they said in their 2009 country report that the “trial procedures did not always meet international standards of fair trial and there were continuing concerns about lack of respect for the rule of law. In some cases with a political context, the treatment of suspects amounted to persecution. The right of suspects to legal representation during investigation was repeatedly violated.

The UK courts have also expressed concern over the Russian justice system recently in the extradition case of Dudko v The Government of the Russian Federation (see our post). Under the Human Rights Act, the UK cannot extradite someone if s/he is likely to be subjected to a justice system which would breach their Article 6 rights to a fair trial. The High Court noted that within the Russian criminal justice system it was not possible to seek documentation in relation to the trumped-up nature of charges and the corrupt nature of the prosecution nor to raise those matters at all in the trial of the charges. The court ultimately rejected the extradition request on other grounds, but expressed concerns over the “the role and accountability of the prosecutor in relation to the fairness of a criminal trial”.

In the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian Federation has been reprimanded repeatedly for failing to implement judgments of the court, notably in two recent decisions which are discussed here.

The UK Human Rights Blog concentrates on decisions within the UK, or which have relevance to the UK. This is because covering human rights issues and case-law in the UK keeps us busy enough. The UK justice system is often criticised by those who work within it, but Sutyagin’s experiences provide an excellent reminder of the benefits of living and practising in a country with a well-developed and predictable legal system which upholds the rule of law.

The film of the talk will be available shortly on Robert Amsterdam’s blog.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;


  1. Michael Hill says:

    `Exceptions` covers most motoring `offences`, as many motorists will tell you.
    Perjury will be committed ad infinitum to secure some piffling motoring conviction.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities public inquiries public interest immunity quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: