Great Britain provided asylum to a Russian soldier who deserted from Chechnya

The London Court of Appeal on Immigration satisfied the request for the provision of political asylum to the Russian soldier who deserted from Chechnya. According to the materials of the court, Andrei Krotov, born in 1977, arrived in the UK in 2000 shortly after he deserted from Chechnya. The basis for the provision of asylum was "the danger of punishment for refusing to participate in war crimes."

While in Chechnya, Krotov served in military intelligence and decided to leave the part after "he realized that he would participate in the murders of civilians."

Krotov’s lawyer Mr. Bangura refused to discuss the case of his client with a Newsru.com correspondent, referring to the confidentiality of the relationship of a lawyer and a client. But the editors of Newsru.com received a copy of the text of the decision of the London Court of Appeal in the Krotov case, published on October 29, 2004.

Having made his decision, the judge motivated him as follows: in the armed conflict in Chechnya there were “large -scale violations of the fundamental foundations of human behavior” and “the applicant could be forced to take part in these acts” and could “be punished for refusing to submit”.

The resolution says that "the applicant (Krotov) did not approve of the war in general, regardless of how it was fought. He did not want to die in this war. His discontent by warfare is described in the statement very briefly and with insufficient evidence. It is obvious that it is due to his personal beliefs. He provides data from various organizations regarding the methods of warfare."

"The applicant is a Russian citizen born in 1977. He arrived in the UK in February 2000 and immediately asked for political asylum. He deserted from the Russian army shortly after he was sent to serve in the city of Grozny, in Chechnya. He served in a detachment of military intelligence and left his post at night, while his colleagues were looking for the rebels who threatened to attack them. He was called up. After the expiration of the deferral and after 3 months of training, he objected to the fighting unit. He objected to this particular war, in which it would be required to "kill innocent civilians and destroy their property." Most likely, this would be disproportionately prison in prison with poor conditions of detention, ”the court said.

Approximately a third of the official imprisonment of the court is quotes from reports of human rights organizations dedicated to the "atrocities" of Russian troops in Chechnya. It is especially noted that Krotov did not take part in them and did not even hear from his colleagues about anything like that.

"The applicant was unable to convincingly prove that for him there was a real risk of participation in such actions (there is massive murders, torture, killing the civilian population and rape-approx. Newsru.com). He could not provide evidence of his participation in such actions. The applicant could not provide evidence that he had ever seen something like that. He did not refuse to take part in similar actions and He did not have the consequences of such a refusal.

However, the judge issued a decision to provide asylum to the Russian deserter, based on the principle of "from the contrary": the court has no evidence that in case of refusal to participate in military operations on military operations could be persecuted and imprisonment, but there is no evidence of the reverse - that the newfront would not be forced to shoot at civilians.

"The Russian army in Chechnya is not disciplined and is unlikely to have an effective and responsible management structure," the court said. Based on this, the court decided in favor of Krotov, since, theoretically, if he had been ordered to commit atrocities, he could not refuse, and if he refused, he would be severely punished.

"Given the facts known about the Russian army in Chechnya, we need firm evidence that the refusal to comply with such an order would not lead to serious consequences for the soldier," the court decision said. Evidence that in case of a refusal of a soldier would be punished, the court was not given to the court, but, according to the judges, this is quite logical.

"Certificates of widespread violations allow us to conclude that the recruit could very well participate in such actions, at least stand, look not to prevent how his colleagues perform such actions," the court concludes.

- Help: Political refuge in Britain

As noted in the Civil Freedom Fund, which sent a copy of the decisions to the editorial office, the British judge made a special decision to publish the court’s conclusion due to its significance when considering issues related to Chechnya and deserters from there in the period 1999-2000. This means that the solution has a case -based value for future asylum petitioners belonging to this category.

The British Embassy does not comment on messages about the provision of asylum to the Russian soldier

The British embassy in Moscow refused to comment on reports on the provision of political asylum in the UK Russian soldier who deserted from Chechnya.

"According to the established practice, the embassy does not comment on individual cases of providing political asylum in the UK," Alan Holmes spokeswoman in Moscow told Interfax on Thursday.