I live to this day as well...
Grigory Pasko, journalist
Instead of an epigraph: «Endpiece of a modern fairytale: «And had the not been rehabilitated, they live to this day as well» -- Jerzy Lec
Если Вы хотите прочитать оригинал данной статьи на русском языке, нажмите сюда.It goes without saying that I am disappointed by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. But no more than that. The ECHR decision in any case is belated and doesn't change anything in my life. Much worse is that this decision, in essence, is a spit into the souls of thousands of people: both those who are still waiting for positive decisions with respect to their cases (and may not live to see them) and those who supported me all these years.
I will try to take apart, point by point, the one paragraph from the court's decision that is available to me.
«The Strasbourg court in its decision reminded that Pasko at the
moment of the commission of his actions was not a journalist, but an
officer and was duty-bound to observe the boundaries that the military
profession imposes».
In this regard the ECHR completely ignores the fact that ALL military journalists in Russia were governed in their activity by the law on the mass information media. A law «On military mass information media» does not exist! A strange logic of the judges: if I was an officer, then I had no right to speak publicly about violations of the law (and the secret dumping of radioactive waste in the sea - this is a crime!). Also strange is that the ECHR did not see the idiocy in the existence of such a deformed symbiosis as «military journalist». Even today's minister of defense of the RF noticed this oddity, having ordered to change military personnel to civilians in the mass information media subordinated to the MOD.
«Both the legislative base on which the judgement of the year 2001 had been issued, and the substantiations of the Russian judgments, the ECHR deemed deserving of respect...»
What does respect to the entire legislative base have to do with anything here, if what was being spoken of in my application was a concrete law and the fact that in the moment of the accusation it had not yet entered into force? Untenable too is the reference to Russian judgments: the first was completely overturned by the Supreme Court; the second was substantially changed.
«...While the information that Pasko had transferred to the Japanese, in the opinion of the judges, could in the event of disclosure have indeed caused damage to the state security of Russia».
Two courts established that I had not transferred ANY information to the Japanese. In the judgment, that has entered into legal force, is written: had the intention to transfer.
Even in the opinion of KGB experts, the information (notes in a notebook for the summing up of military exercises) MAY HAVE caused damage in the event if it had been transferred. But, inasmuch as there was no transfer, there was no damage.
«... Besides that, the ECHR reminded that Pasko had received punishment more lenient than the article of the CC on espionage prescribes».
If three jail-and-camp years sat through by an innocent person for honestly carrying out the professional duties of a journalist - this, in the opinion of the ECHR, is normal, then all that's left for me is merely to regret about the quality of this decision and strongly hope that it is not dictated by political expediency.
What else do I think about this decision as a whole?
By this decision the ECHR recognizes that a person can be called a criminal before the decision of a court; that experts in a case initiated by the KGB can be employees of the KGB;, that a case can be examined for 6 years and this will not be considered an unreasonable term; that you can apply not laws, but sub-legal acts and on their basis charge and convict people; that a journalist in Russia does not have the right to express his opinion openly and that to write on the topic of the environment a journalist does not have the right without the permission of the organs of the KGB; that a ruling of the Supreme Court of the RF that has entered into legal force on the falsification of the materials of a criminal case - this is just something that everybody dreamed...
Besides that, this decision casts doubt on the authority of Amnesty International, which in the year 1999 recognized me as a prisoner of conscience. This decision throws a shadow on the competence of Human Rights Watch, Reporters sans frontiers, many international and Russian organizations, both journalistic and environmental...Subjected is the competence of the European Parliament, which twice addressed the case in several resolutions (8 February 2002 and 4 July 2002). Likewise the jurists of the ECHR have thrown a shadow on their colleagues from the Committee for juridical questions and human rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who in a recommendation to a resolution of 31 January of the year 2002 indicated that my conviction is based not on the law, but on a secret order of the ministry of defense.
And the last thing. Things aren't sweet for independent journalists in Russia as it is, without this. Article 10 of the Convention («Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers») used to be at least some kind of guarantor of the execution by them of their professional duties.
Now there practically is no such guarantor.
Photos: the inquisition in Vladivostok, in the opinion of the ECHR, was fair and just.
