Grigory Pasko’s legal representatives has extended his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The extention is a result of a co-ordination of the application submitted by Bellona on December 24, 2002 and an application submitted by the Moscow-based International Protection Centre on April 23, 2001.

As a result of the co-ordination, complaints under Article 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, have been added to the complaints made in Bellona’s application, which were related to violations of Article 6, 7 and 10 of the Convention.

Catalogue of violations
Based on the submitted materials, the Strasbourg Court is requested to hold that the following catalogue of violations occured throughout the Russian authorities’ handling of the Pasko-case:

– Article 3: Pasko was subject to degrading treatment while being kept in pretrial detention in 1998 and 1999;
– Article 5 (4), cf. 5 (3): the Russian courts carried out no proper review of the lawfulness of his detention in that period;
– Article 6 (1): The charges were not determined within a reasonable time;
– Article 6 (1): Pasko’s right to a fair trial was not respected, as the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings were not adhered to;
– Article 6 (1), cf. 6 (3) b: Pasko did not get adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
– Article 6 (2): Pasko’s right to be presumed innocent were violated through statements made by high ranking navy officials throughout the proceedings;
– Article 6, cf. article 14: the conviction is based on illegally obtained evidence;
– Article 7: The Conviction is based on retroactive use and extensive interpretation of the Criminal law;
– Article 10: The criminal proceedings against Pasko constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of expression.

It is at the time of writing hard to estimate when the Strasbourg Court will start its examination of these complaints. Because of the Court’s huge workload and the dimensions of Pasko’s complaint, there is, however, reason to believe that the case will not be settled on the merits before in 2005.