To be recognized as a political prisoner does not mean to be nominated for an award

SOVA Center Opposes Recognition as a Political Prisoner Alexandra Belova. Director of the Institute of Human Rights Valentin objects to us Gefter.

I agree that the distinction between the criminally punishable and the simply reprehensible is strongly necessary - not only for the state, but also for society. Especially in connection with politically motivated prosecutions of people receiving considerable terms of pre-trial or “by sentence” imprisonment. Those who are accepted considered political prisoners.

In this case, we are talking about the Belov-Potkin incident, which will soon be a year old, as are kept in a pre-trial detention center on charges of an "economic" crime. SOVA Center does not count his political prisoners, as the Union of Solidarity with Political Prisoners did), adding Belov to the list of victims of this kind of injustice. Describing his case So:

Belov (Potkin) Alexander Anatolyevich , Russian opposition politician of nationalist views, one of heads of EPO "Russians", adviser to the head of the management company of LLC "Mospromstroy". Accused on fabricated criminal cases under paragraphs. "a", "b" part 4 of Art. 174 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Legalization money or other property acquired by other persons by criminal organized by a group on a particularly large scale"), is suspected according to part 2 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity”), has been in custody pending trial since October 23, 2014 year, despite the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation expressly prohibits choosing such a measure of restraint in relation to the accused on economic articles.

The grounds for that "Owl" does not classify Belov as a political prisoner is simple: his nationalist views combined with calls for violence on this ground, which falls under one of the exceptions specified in the text of the Criteria Guidelines, used by human rights defenders in such cases. This is 3.3b, referring to a person who: “committed a hate crime against person or property or called for violent actions on national, ethnic, racial, religious or other grounds.

Since Sova agrees that there are violations legality and rights of the suspect Belov, then the dispute can only be about his attitudes and actions towards discriminated aliens and migrants as victims his "hate speech", as well as the authorities that patronize them.

In connection with the position of the Owl, I will give two arguments:

1. Formally speaking - Belov was not convicted of direct violent actions on the basis of hatred, but calls for them are given in two examples. At the same time, in both situations, this non-status public the politician reacts to the murder of his supporter (!) or uses military-revolutionary rhetoric rather anti-government than in relation to peaceful visiting. Disgusting and even unconstitutional, but not criminally punishable, tk. calls for it is difficult to see the commission of a specific violent crime ... Closer to “beat the Jews, save Russia” in the absence of Jews as real victims ...

2. But it is much more significant that the acts now incriminated to Belov lead to violence or calls have nothing to do with it. Dangerous for society is being created and already the usual precedent for the criminal prosecution authorities to justify it by the fact that what Belov did, regardless of what he was accused of. That is it is recognized that radical nationalism can be considered, albeit not an explicit basis for wrongful persecution and condemnation (!?).

Tried for alleged legalization of foreign means, believing that disgusting looks and vague appeals give authorities an indulgence to introduce a political motive into justice - even if from best intentions or for the preventive elimination of unwanted in the sense of public safety policy..

This is especially evident in the fact that long before the trial this politically, and not criminally dangerous person is isolated with the help of choosing a measure of restraint, now usually not accepted in the practice of prosecution for economic crimes. Is it because the accusation was supplemented by Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - see the certificate of the Union of Solidarity), to an economic business that hardly has attitude?

So:

1) Criminal persecution of Belov, apparently, can be classified as politically motivated – at least due to the selectivity of the measure of restraint in the form of content in custody (within the meaning, if not according to the norm of procedural legislation); at In this case, the only reason for not including him among political prisoners are rhetorical calls for xenophobic and anti-government violence of a clearly non-specific nature and in no way unrelated to this case.

Political aspect of persecution seems more dangerous than the threat of keeping Belov in conditions that were provided to Navalny or Udaltsov.

2) The following interpretation of the exceptions proposed in the Criteria suggests itself classification as political prisoners: they belong not to people with their inhumane views and not even to hate crimes, they once committed (with a possibly expunged conviction), but only to such violent acts or calls for them implementation in relation to specific persons or their property, which is evidentiary took place in connection with the event the alleged crime. Especially when it comes to crime, which even had indirect intent based on enmity or hatred.

Certainly, both conclusions are not final and require further discussion, which is the purpose of my remark to the commentary of "Owls" in connection with the incident of Belov.