In-Custody Death in Moscow Due to Calculated and Deliberate Neglect and Inhumane Treatment

July 18, 2011

PHR releas­es first inde­pen­dent med­ical eval­u­a­tion of Mag­nit­sky case  and calls for an inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tion into lawyer’s death 

Physi­cians for Human Rights (PHR), an inde­pen­dent orga­ni­za­tion that uses the integri­ty of med­i­cine and sci­ence to stop mass atroc­i­ties and severe human rights vio­la­tions against indi­vid­u­als, today announced that cal­cu­lat­ed, delib­er­ate and inhu­mane neglect ulti­mate­ly led to the death of 37-year-old anti-cor­rup­tion lawyer Sergei Mag­nit­sky. Mag­nit­sky died fol­low­ing 358 days in police cus­tody in Moscow in Novem­ber 2009. The high pro­file case has focused inter­na­tion­al atten­tion on human rights abuse and cor­rup­tion in Russia.

PHR’s experts, includ­ing a lead­ing foren­sic pathol­o­gist and a car­di­ol­o­gist and prison health expert, reviewed avail­able doc­u­men­ta­tion in the case at the request of the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly. In the first inde­pen­dent med­ical eval­u­a­tion of the Mag­nit­sky case, the experts expressed con­cern about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of incom­plete evi­dence col­lec­tion and appar­ent con­tra­dic­tions in the Russ­ian death inves­ti­ga­tions and PHR’s find­ings. Read more

Dutch Parliament Votes 150 to 0 to Sanction the Russian Officials Who Killed Anti-Corruption Lawyer Sergei Magnitsky

July 4, 2011

The Dutch par­lia­ment, by a vote of 150 to 0 has passed a res­o­lu­tion demand­ing that the Dutch gov­ern­ment impose visa and eco­nom­ic sanc­tions on the Russ­ian offi­cials who were respon­si­ble for the false arrest, tor­ture and death of 37-year old anti-cor­rup­tion lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.

Eigh­teen months have passed since Sergei Mag­nit­sky died in Inte­ri­or Min­istry cus­tody after tes­ti­fy­ing against cor­rupt state offi­cials in Rus­sia.  Despite Pres­i­dent Medvedev call­ing for an inves­ti­ga­tion, not a sin­gle per­son has been charged.  Instead, the senior offi­cials respon­si­ble for Mag­nit­sky’s tor­ture and death have been pro­mot­ed and in some cas­es have received state hon­ors. Despite world­wide calls for pros­e­cu­tion, these offi­cials enjoy absolute impuni­ty in Russia.

On Decem­ber 16 last year, the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment called on all EU mem­ber states to impose visa and eco­nom­ic sanc­tions on the Russ­ian offi­cials behind the Mag­nit­sky case. In May 2011, the US Sen­ate sub­mit­ted leg­is­la­tion enti­tled “The Sergei Mag­nit­sky Rule of Law Account­abil­i­ty Act”, that will give these sanc­tions the force of a law in the Unit­ed States.

The motion in the Dutch par­lia­ment, enti­tled “Over de dood van Sergei Mag­nit­sky,” was passed unan­i­mous­ly by the low­er House of Par­lia­ment.  It reads:

“The Cham­ber, hear­ing the pro­ceed­ings, not­ing that the Russ­ian lawyer Sergei Mag­nit­sky died under sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances in a Russ­ian prison, after a major cor­rup­tion scan­dal was uncov­ered in Rus­sia … not­ing that among oth­er things, the U.S. Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives have put mea­sures to restrict visas and freez­ing assets of Russ­ian offi­cials who were involved in the death of Mag­nit­sky, calls on the Gov­ern­ment to take steps in a Euro­pean con­text, in line with the ini­tia­tives of the U.S. Sen­ate and the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, so that those respon­si­ble for the death of Sergei Mag­nit­sky be held to account.”

Com­ment­ing on the vote, one of the ini­tia­tors of the res­o­lu­tion, Kath­leen Fer­ri­er MP (Chris­t­ian Democ­rats), said, “The fact that this res­o­lu­tion was adopt­ed unan­i­mous­ly by all 150 mem­bers of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives shows the strong com­mit­ment of Dutch par­lia­ment with the case of Sergei Mag­nit­sky. For me, impuni­ty is unac­cept­able. That is why I am sat­is­fied with this result. But I also realise that, though this is a very impor­tant step, there are many more steps to come. We will con­tin­ue to fight for jus­tice for Sergei Magnitsky.”

Sergei Mag­nit­sky rep­re­sent­ed the Her­mitage Fund, once the largest for­eign port­fo­lio investor in Rus­sia. He was arrest­ed by the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry after he exposed how Russ­ian offi­cials stole $230 mil­lion of pub­lic funds. He was detained by the same offi­cials he had named in his tes­ti­mo­ny and tor­tured for one year in cus­tody to with­draw his tes­ti­mo­ny. After he refused and filed numer­ous com­plaints, he was found dead in an iso­la­tion cell in a  pre-tri­al deten­tion cen­ter. While in cus­tody, despite his extreme ill­ness and more than twen­ty offi­cial requests for med­ical atten­tion, he was refused med­ical care.

Coskun Çörüz, the head of the Dutch del­e­ga­tion to OSCE and Dutch MP, who was the spon­sor of the Sergei Mag­nit­sky Motion in the Dutch par­lia­ment, said:

“As a mem­ber of Dutch Par­lia­ment and a lawyer, I am pleased that the Dutch Par­lia­ment unan­i­mous­ly adopt­ed my motion about the case of Sergei Mag­nit­sky. This is a strong sig­nal from the Dutch Par­lia­ment to the Dutch Gov­ern­ment. I believe that human rights are for every­body, every­where and any time. I believe the Dutch gov­ern­ment, which is known as advo­cate of human rights, will act in the spir­it of this res­o­lu­tion.”

The Sergei Mag­nit­sky motion in the Dutch par­lia­ment was sup­port­ed by deputies from both rul­ing and oppo­si­tion par­ties. In addi­tion to Mr Çörüz (Chris­t­ian Democ­rats), the motion was co-spon­sored by Mr Joël Voordewind  (Chris­t­ian Union), Mr Han Ten Broeke (Lib­er­al Par­ty), and Mr Kees van der Staaij  (Dutch Reformed Par­ty). Senior Dutch law­mak­er Frans Tim­mer­mans also vot­ed for the resolution.

The co-spon­sor of the Sergei Mag­nit­sky motion, Joël Voordewind MP, said:

“I sin­cere­ly regret the death of Mr. Mag­nit­sky … Now is the time to raise the pres­sure on Rus­sia to bring to jus­tice those respon­si­ble for this cow­ard­ly act. Unfor­tu­nate­ly the death of Mr. Mag­nit­sky is not a iso­lat­ed inci­dent but part of a much larg­er prob­lem of the lack of human rights in Rus­sia. Freez­ing assets and ban­ning visa’s is there­fore a clear sig­nal to the Russ­ian author­i­ties that this is unac­cept­able.”

“The Sergei Mag­nit­sky sto­ry touch­es every per­son who hears it, which is why the Dutch par­lia­ment respond­ed so robust­ly to his tragedy and what it sym­bol­izes for human rights and the rule of law in Rus­sia,” said William Brow­der, CEO of Her­mitage Capital.

See the ref­er­ence to the Sergei Mag­nit­sky Motion 32 735, nr. 14 on the Dutch Par­lia­ment website:
http://www.tweedekamer.nl/images/30 – 06-2011_tcm118-222571.pdf

Sergei Magnitsky’s Mother Sues Russian Law Enforcement Agencies For Access to Medical Records

June 29, 2011

Today, the lawyer rep­re­sent­ing Sergei Magnitsky’s moth­er filed a law­suit with the Bas­man­ny Court in Moscow to com­pel Russ­ian law enforce­ment agen­cies to hand over tis­sue sam­ples and oth­er med­ical infor­ma­tion regard­ing the death of her son, 37-year old anti-cor­rup­tion lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.

The law­suit was filed by lawyer Niko­lai Gorokhov, fol­low­ing the rejec­tion of a request for access to tis­sue sam­ples by Inves­ti­ga­tor Mari­na Lomonoso­va, from the Russ­ian State Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee in charge of the inves­ti­ga­tion into Magnitsky’s death, on the grounds that, “the par­tic­i­pa­tion of vic­tims in the pre-tri­al inves­ti­ga­tion … does not imply that they under­take stud­ies inde­pen­dent­ly.”

“The desire of Magnitsky’s moth­er to car­ry out an inde­pen­dent study by a spe­cial­ist using the remain­ing tis­sue archive of her son … is legit­i­mate; there is no law or legal act that would deem the rights of the vic­tim in this case as invalid,” says the com­plaint by Mr. Gorokhov.

“Pres­i­dent Medvedev said at his 18 May press con­fer­ence, that he was inter­est­ed in a ‘full, impar­tial and com­pre­hen­sive inves­ti­ga­tion.’ If that is indeed the case, then the author­i­ties should not be afraid for the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly or any inde­pen­dent third par­ties car­ry­ing out their own study,” said a Her­mitage Cap­i­tal representative.

This was the fourth rejec­tion of a request for an inde­pen­dent assess­ment in Sergei Magnitsky’s case since Novem­ber 2009.

On 17 Novem­ber 2009, the day after Sergei Mag­nit­sky died in police cus­tody, lawyers rep­re­sent­ing the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly offi­cial­ly request­ed that an inde­pen­dent pathol­o­gist be present to observe the state-sanc­tioned autop­sy of Sergei Mag­nit­sky. This request was reject­ed by the Russ­ian Prosecutor’s office on the grounds that “all pathol­o­gists are equal­ly inde­pen­dent.”

On the same day, the fam­i­ly filed an addi­tion­al request that the body of Sergei Mag­nit­sky be released in order to car­ry out an inde­pen­dent autop­sy. This request was reject­ed by the Russ­ian Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor’s office, with no for­mal justification.

On 18 Novem­ber 2009, the Mag­nit­sky fam­i­ly request­ed that Sergei Magnitsky’s body be released for a tra­di­tion­al, open-cas­ket, memo­r­i­al cer­e­mo­ny. This request was refused by the author­i­ties who stat­ed that Magnitsky’s body would only be released to the fam­i­ly on the strict con­di­tion of imme­di­ate bur­ial. As a result, the body was buried with­out any objec­tive med­ical examination.

The cur­rent request for access to tis­sue sam­ples was made by Natalia Magnitskaya’s lawyer fol­low­ing the dis­cov­ery that, with­out her knowl­edge or con­sent, Mr. Magnitsky’s med­ical archive had been sig­nif­i­cant­ly deplet­ed since the state autop­sy took place.

The request for tis­sue sam­ples from Mrs. Magnitskaya’s lawyer relies on sev­er­al facts, includ­ing that in the eigh­teen months since the offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion start­ed, the inves­ti­ga­tors had already appoint­ed and com­plet­ed four med­ical his­to­log­i­cal stud­ies, and all offi­cial stud­ies had been car­ried out by state appoint­ed experts.

The request cit­ed doubts over the accu­ra­cy, com­plete­ness and valid­i­ty of the offi­cial exam­i­na­tions held in state insti­tu­tions, due to like­ly inter­fer­ence from high-rank­ing offi­cials whose per­son­al actions may have ulti­mate­ly result­ed in Magnitsky’s death. These indi­vid­u­als, there­fore, have a keen inter­est in con­ceal­ing the truth. At the same time, they enjoy the rank and resources avail­able to apply pres­sure on state experts, con­ceal essen­tial data on the crim­i­nal case, and pre­vent an objec­tive outcome.

The law­suit filed with Bas­man­ny Court notes that the refusal of access to tis­sue sam­ples vio­lates the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of Natalia Mag­nit­skaya as a vic­tim, and her right to col­lect evi­dence. Under Arti­cle 42 of the Russ­ian Code of Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dure, the vic­tim in a crim­i­nal case is enti­tled to sub­mit their own evi­dence. Mrs. Magnitskaya’s lawyer refers to Arti­cle 45 of the Russ­ian Con­sti­tu­tion which guar­an­tees all cit­i­zens the right to pro­tect them­selves by all legal means.

“Restrict­ing the victim’s right to par­tic­i­pate in the gath­er­ing and pre­sen­ta­tion of evi­dence impedes access to jus­tice and is the basis for the appeal of such actions in court,” states Mag­nit­skaya’s filing.

Sergei Mag­nit­sky, who was arrest­ed after giv­ing tes­ti­mo­ny against offi­cials of the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry, was held in tor­tur­ous con­di­tions, sub­ject­ed to phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal pres­sure and was sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly refused med­ical care despite appeals addressed to the Russ­ian Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor and the Deputy Inte­ri­or Min­is­ter. He was specif­i­cal­ly denied a med­ical­ly pre­scribed ultra­sound exam­i­na­tion and surgery for his gall­stones and pancreatitis.

After his death, there were var­i­ous indi­ca­tions on his body that he had been sub­ject­ed to vio­lence. At the funer­al, rel­a­tives noticed bruis­es and abra­sions on Mag­nit­sky’s hands and that some fin­gers were bro­ken. They also learned that Mag­nit­sky had been placed in hand­cuffs and struck with a rub­ber baton in his final hours in cus­tody. Dur­ing this time, he was in extreme pain, vom­it­ing, and left with­out med­ical atten­tion in an iso­la­tion cell for one hour and eigh­teen min­utes until he died.

Since his death, offi­cials from the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry, Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor’s Office and the Pen­i­ten­tiary Ser­vice, have all giv­en con­tra­dic­to­ry accounts regard­ing the essen­tial facts sur­round­ing Mr. Magnitsky’s death, includ­ing loca­tion, time and cause of death. Not a sin­gle per­son has been charged or pros­e­cut­ed for Magnitsky’s unlaw­ful arrest, tor­ture and death in custody.

On 31 May, Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Medvedev appoint­ed Russ­ian Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor Yuri Chai­ka to over­see the offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion into the Mag­nit­sky case despite a clear con­flict of inter­est. Yuri Chai­ka is the same offi­cial who Sergei Mag­nit­sky held per­son­al­ly respon­si­ble for his per­se­cu­tion in cus­tody. It was also announced by the Russ­ian Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor’s Office that the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry offi­cers respon­si­ble for Magnitsky’s incar­cer­a­tion have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The hear­ing of the com­plaint has been sched­uled by the court for 19 July 2011 at:  11 Kalanchevskaya St, Moscow.

Hermitage Files Criminal Complaint in Russia Demanding Investigation Into the Second Massive Tax Rebate Fraud Exposed by Sergei Magnitsky

June 20, 2011

Lawyers act­ing on behalf of Her­mitage Cap­i­tal filed a new crim­i­nal com­plaint today with the Russ­ian State Inves­tiga­tive Com­mit­tee demand­ing the pros­e­cu­tion of offi­cials from Moscow Tax Offices 25 and 28, who had per­pe­trat­ed the theft of US$107 mil­lion through a fraud­u­lent tax refund scheme in 2006.

The com­plaint impli­cates Olga Stepano­va, head of Moscow Tax Office 28, and Ele­na Khim­i­na, head of Moscow Tax Office 25. They are the same two offi­cials who a year lat­er approved an iden­ti­cal US$230 mil­lion fraud­u­lent tax refund. After Russ­ian lawyer Sergei Mag­nit­sky exposed the schemes, he was arrest­ed, tor­tured, and killed in Russ­ian police custody.

A Her­mitage Cap­i­tal spokesman said:

“This US$107 fraud­u­lent tax refund case has direct rel­e­vance to the case that led the arrest, tor­ture and death in cus­tody of Sergei Mag­nit­sky. If the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment is in any way seri­ous about inves­ti­gat­ing the death of Sergei Mag­nit­sky, or indeed about fight­ing cor­rup­tion and insti­tut­ing the rule of law, they must inves­ti­gate this crime.”

The lat­est fil­ing shows that between Novem­ber 2006 and March 2007, Ms. Stepano­va and Ms. Khim­i­na approved fraud­u­lent tax refund requests total­ing US$107 mil­lion from two Russ­ian com­pa­nies Finan­cial Invest­ments and Selen Secu­ri­ties. These two com­pa­nies were sub­sidiaries of Rengaz, an invest­ment vehi­cle man­aged by Renais­sance Cap­i­tal. Rengaz had paid the US$107 mil­lion in tax­es in Jan­u­ary 2006. Sub­se­quent­ly, in the spring of 2006, Finan­cial Invest­ments and Selen Secu­ri­ties plead­ed guilty to false debts total­ing US$525 mil­lion in sev­er­al Russ­ian courts. The false debts and sub­se­quent court judg­ments were then used to apply for a fraud­u­lent US$107 mil­lion tax refund.

The inves­ti­ga­tion by Sergei Mag­nit­sky found that both tax rebate frauds – the $107 mil­lion in 2006 and the $230 mil­lion in 2007 — were iden­ti­cal. The same forged back­dat­ed con­tracts using the exact same lan­guage were sub­mit­ted to the Russ­ian courts in Moscow and Kazan to cre­ate the fake lia­bil­i­ties in both cas­es. The same lawyer, Andrei Pavlov, pre­sent­ed the fake con­tracts in court in both frauds. The same plain­tiffs, Gen­nady Plaksin and Alex­ei Shesh­e­nia signed their names on the col­lu­sive law­suits in both frauds. The same tax offi­cials Olga Stepano­va and Ele­na Khim­i­na approved both fraud­u­lent tax refunds in very short peri­ods of time with no audits tak­ing place. All the mon­ey in both cas­es was chan­neled through the same small Russ­ian bank, Uni­ver­sal Sav­ings Bank. Accord­ing to court records, the ben­e­fi­cial own­er of this bank was Dmit­ry Kluyev, a man con­vict­ed in the $1.6 bil­lion fraud involv­ing the shares of the iron ore pro­duc­er Mikhailovsky GOK.

In Octo­ber of 2008, Sergei Mag­nit­sky sub­mit­ted evi­dence in an offi­cial tes­ti­mo­ny to the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or Min­istry about the stolen US$230 mil­lion. In his tes­ti­mo­ny, Mr. Mag­nit­sky named a num­ber of police offi­cers involved in the ille­gal seizure of doc­u­ments from The Her­mitage Fund, which were used to per­pe­trate the fraud. Lat­er that month, he also shared details of his foren­sic research on both the $230 mil­lion and the $107 mil­lion frauds with Busi­ness­Week in Moscow.

One month after his tes­ti­mo­ny and his Busi­ness­Week inter­view, the offi­cers whom he had tes­ti­fied against arrest­ed Mr. Mag­nit­sky. He was tor­tured for one year in police cus­tody where he died on Novem­ber 16^th 2009. Russ­ian author­i­ties con­tin­ue to refuse an inves­ti­ga­tion into his tor­ture in cus­tody, as well as an inves­ti­ga­tion into the offi­cials com­plic­it in the tax refund schemes.

A Her­mitage Cap­i­tal spokesman said:

“The same gov­ern­ment offi­cials were involved in per­pe­trat­ing both crimes in 2006 and 2007. It shows a sys­tem­at­ic pat­tern of embez­zle­ment. Despite the over­whelm­ing evi­dence, those Russ­ian gov­ern­ment offi­cials enjoy absolute impuni­ty for their actions.”

Russ­ian author­i­ties have repeat­ed­ly refused to launch an inves­ti­ga­tion into the offi­cials impli­cat­ed in the $230 mil­lion fraud, or to trace the stolen mon­ey. In April of 2011, Inte­ri­or Min­istry spokes­woman Iri­na Duduk­i­na stat­ed that the mon­ey could not be traced because the truck car­ry­ing all the details from Uni­ver­sal Sav­ings Bank had “explod­ed.”

In June 2008, the Russ­ian Cen­tral Bank approved the request of the own­ers of the Uni­ver­sal Sav­ings Bank to liq­ui­date the bank, despite the crim­i­nal com­plaints filed by Her­mitage Cap­i­tal demand­ing a halt of the liq­ui­da­tion process in order to inves­ti­gate the Bank’s role in the US$230 mil­lion fraud.

The Russ­ian author­i­ties have only pros­e­cut­ed two ex con­victs for their role in the $230 mil­lion tax theft. One, Vic­tor Markelov, a sawmill fore­man who was con­vict­ed of manslaugh­ter in 2001, was named by the Inte­ri­or Min­istry as the “mas­ter­mind” of the fraud. He was giv­en the most lenient sen­tence pos­si­ble of five years in a col­lapsed pro­ceed­ing that heard no evi­dence. Despite the fact that this was the largest tax refund fraud in Russ­ian his­to­ry, the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment raised no finan­cial claims against Mr Markelov and allowed him to keep assets in excess of US$2 mil­lion that he had acquired before the time of the conviction.

The oth­er man con­vict­ed was Vyach­eslav Khleb­nikov, an unem­ployed man pre­vi­ous­ly con­vict­ed of bur­glary was also sen­tenced to five years in a sim­i­lar col­lapsed pro­ceed­ing hear­ing no evidence.

On the basis of the tes­ti­mo­ny of these two ex-con­victs, the Russ­ian Inte­ri­or min­istry con­clud­ed that offi­cials in tax office 25 and 28 were “tricked and mis­led” and were sub­se­quent­ly absolved of any respon­si­bil­i­ty for the fraud­u­lent tax rebates. On the eve of the one-year anniver­sary of Sergei Magnitsky’s death, the Inte­ri­or Min­istry went on to posthu­mous­ly blame Sergei Mag­nit­sky of per­pe­trat­ing the fraud that he uncovered.

Olga Stepano­va, head of Moscow Tax Office 28, was pro­mot­ed this Jan­u­ary to one of the Russ­ian Min­istry of Defense’s fed­er­al agencies.

In Jan­u­ary of 2011, Her­mitage Cap­i­tal filed a peti­tion call­ing on author­i­ties to inves­ti­gate the theft of the US$230 mil­lion, sub­mit­ting sig­nif­i­cant doc­u­men­tary evi­dence that Russ­ian offi­cials and their fam­i­lies had laun­dered the mon­ey through Swiss bank accounts. The Swiss Attor­ney Gen­er­al has since frozen the accounts belong­ing to fam­i­ly mem­bers of Olga Stepano­va, the head of Moscow Tax Office 28, who is the sub­ject of the new crim­i­nal complaint.

Russian Delegation at the Council Of Europe Objects to the Testimony on Magnitsky Case, Walks Out in Protest

June 8, 2011

The Russ­ian Del­e­ga­tion to the Coun­cil of Europe staged a protest yes­ter­day in advance of a sched­uled sem­i­nar of the Coun­cil of Europe’s Human Rights and Legal Affairs Com­mit­tee at the Nor­we­gian Par­lia­ment, issu­ing a state­ment that the del­e­ga­tion planned to boy­cott the tes­ti­mo­ny of William Brow­der, CEO of Her­mitage Capital.

Mr. Brow­der was in Oslo to tes­ti­fy before the Com­mit­tee on the case of Sergei Mag­nit­sky, the 37-year-old anti-cor­rup­tion lawyer who was tor­tured and killed while in Russ­ian police cus­tody. Mr. Brow­der called on the Coun­cil to sup­port visa and eco­nom­ic sanc­tions against the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment offi­cials respon­si­ble for Mr. Magnitsky’s tor­ture and untime­ly death, as well as the sub­se­quent cover-up.

Mr. Brow­der tes­ti­fied at a spe­cial sem­i­nar on the Rein­force­ment of the Rule of Law in Europe, orga­nized by the Coun­cil of Europe’s Com­mit­tee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nor­we­gian par­lia­men­tar­i­an del­e­ga­tion to PACE and the Nor­we­gian Helsin­ki Commission.

Three hours pri­or to Mr. Browder’s tes­ti­mo­ny, the four mem­bers of the Russ­ian del­e­ga­tion issued a state­ment that they were with­draw­ing from the sem­i­nar where Mr. Brow­der was sched­uled to speak because of con­cern that “only one side of the sto­ry was pre­sent­ed.” The del­e­ga­tion was com­prised of three rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Unit­ed Rus­sia — Dmit­ry Vyatkin, Valery Par­fen­ov and Valery Fedorov – and a deputy from Just Rus­sia, Svet­lana Goryacheva.

In an offi­cial state­ment they made as part of their protest, Russ­ian law­mak­ers said that the death of Sergei Mag­nit­sky “has heav­i­ly dam­aged the image of law enforce­ment bod­ies of Russia.”

“They seem to be more con­cerned with the rep­u­ta­tion of law enforce­ment bod­ies than the life of an inno­cent man who tried to stop a major crime being com­mit­ted by offi­cials against his peo­ple, — said William Brow­der. — It just shows that they have no con­cern or sen­si­tiv­i­ty to the val­ue of the human life.”

Mr. Browder’s tes­ti­mo­ny was attend­ed in fact by two out of four mem­bers of the Russ­ian delegation.

Speak­ing to the assem­bly, Mr. Brow­der stated:

“The Russ­ian law­mak­ers may have ignored the fact that an inno­cent lawyer had been tor­tured and killed in pre-tri­al deten­tion, or the fact that half a bil­lion dol­lars had been stolen from the Russ­ian trea­sury, but as soon as it was under­stood that gov­ern­ment offi­cials might be barred from vaca­tion­ing at their Euro­pean vil­las or access­ing their EU bank accounts, Russ­ian law­mak­ers are hold­ing protests in an attempt to block this leg­is­la­tion.”

Eigh­teen months after Sergei Magnitsky’s death from tor­ture in cus­tody, the Russ­ian par­lia­ment has not inves­ti­gat­ed his false arrest, or his tor­ture in pre-tri­al deten­tion. Russ­ian law­mak­ers have like­wise refused to fol­low the evi­dence Mag­nit­sky sub­mit­ted, which impli­cates gov­ern­ment offi­cials in the theft of $500 mil­lion from the Russ­ian trea­sury. In a reverse course of jus­tice, which is emblem­at­ic of the cor­rup­tion and law­less­ness grip­ping Rus­sia today, the offi­cials Mr. Mag­nit­sky exposed have been pro­mot­ed, hon­ored and for­mal­ly re-cer­ti­fied to remain in their posi­tions of power.

In April of this year, Mr. Magnitsky’s for­mer col­league, Amer­i­can attor­ney Jami­son Fire­stone, filed a 23-page peti­tion addressed to the heads of all four lead­ing fac­tions of the Russ­ian par­lia­ment, seek­ing a par­lia­men­tary inves­ti­ga­tion into the Mag­nit­sky case and the role of Gen­er­al Pros­e­cu­tor Chai­ka in its cov­er-up. He has received no response and no inves­ti­ga­tion has been launched.

Russ­ian human rights activists and dis­si­dents have stat­ed that the Mag­nit­sky case is clear and unde­ni­able evi­dence of the impuni­ty of Russ­ian gov­ern­ment offi­cials. Sev­er­al Russ­ian activists have inde­pen­dent­ly appealed to EU lead­er­ship to enact eco­nom­ic sanc­tions. Dur­ing his tes­ti­mo­ny, Mr, Brow­der told the assem­bled Euro­pean law­mak­ers that he felt embold­ened by the brav­ery of ordi­nary Rus­sians, and by Sergei Mag­nit­sky in par­tic­u­lar, in call­ing for mea­sured justice.

Mr. Brow­der stated:

“Sergei Mag­nit­sky stood up for jus­tice while suf­fer­ing through the most unimag­in­able, inhu­mane treat­ment until his phys­i­cal state was com­plete­ly bro­ken down by his cap­tors. But his spir­it was unshake­able. He died on Novem­ber 16, 2009, hav­ing spent his final hours in pain, vom­it­ing, being hand­cuffed by eight prison guards, beat­en by a rub­ber baton and writhing in agony. He nev­er signed a false con­fes­sion nor did he with­draw his tes­ti­mo­ny against the cor­rupt offi­cials who kept him hostage for 12 months with­out tri­al. Giv­en the involve­ment of the most senior gov­ern­ment offi­cials in the per­se­cu­tion of Sergei Mag­nit­sky and in the cov­er-up after his death, it is incon­ceiv­able that an inves­ti­ga­tion by Russ­ian author­i­ties alone could pro­duce a fair and unbi­ased inves­ti­ga­tion free from the inter­fer­ence of the high­est-rank­ing offi­cials com­plic­it in the mis­treat­ment and tor­ture of Sergei Mag­nit­sky. The only chance we have to impose mea­sured con­se­quences on those who com­mit­ted these crimes is to appeal to coun­tries where the rule of law serves to pro­tect ordi­nary citizens.”

On Decem­ber 16^th, 2010, the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment adopt­ed a res­o­lu­tion call­ing for visa and eco­nom­ic sanc­tions on the Russ­ian offi­cials impli­cat­ed in the Mag­nit­sky case. This spring, two sim­i­lar pieces of leg­is­la­tion were intro­duced in both cham­bers of the Unit­ed States Con­gress, titled “The Sergei Mag­nit­sky Rule of Law Account­abil­i­ty Act of 2011” and “The Jus­tice for Sergei Mag­nit­sky Act of 2011.” Both acts would impose visa and eco­nom­ic sanc­tions on Russ­ian offi­cials involved in the crimes against Sergei Mag­nit­sky, and the sub­se­quent cov­er-up that has shield­ed Russ­ian offi­cials from prosecution.

See text of Tes­ti­mo­ny by William Brow­der in front of the Coun­cil of Europe’s Com­mit­tee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

http://lawandorderinrussia.org/doc/browder-norwegian-helsinki-speech-7-th-june-2011.pdf

See infor­ma­tion on the Rein­force­ment of the Rule of law in Europe sem­i­nar orga­nized by the CoE Com­mit­tee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nor­we­gian del­e­ga­tion to the PACE:

http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/APFeaturesManager/defaultArtSiteView.asp?Id=407

« Previous Page — Next Page »

• Link