"The European Court's ruling is defective both in theoretical and practical terms, and this fact cannot remain without any procedural reaction on the part of the Russian Federation's Ambassador to the European Human Rights Court," he said.
In Laptev's view, the Strasbourg Court has no clear idea of what the term "amnesty" means. In his complaint, Gusinsky claims that his arrest was illegal as it had not been done without any grounded suspicions and in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code and parliament's May 26, 2000 resolution on amnesty.
According to Laptev, lawyers at Strasbourg misinterpret the term "amnesty," which implies release from punishment, but not from criminal liability, as they believe. "Amnesty as a constitutional institution is, indeed, hard for foreign lawyers to comprehend," he said. Russian authorities proposed that open hearings be held to consider all the complaints from Gusinsky and his defense team, including amnesty-related ones, but the European Court turned this proposal down, the ambassador recalled.
The ruling also obligates the Russian government to pay 88,000 euros to Gusinsky and his defense lawyers in compensation for litigation expenses. Laptev argues that this requirement runs counter to the European Court's general practices, with the sum designated for payment exceeding its usual fees by a factor of 25.
"This goes to show the European Court's double standards applied on Gusinsky's complaint, and the decision (to exact 88,000 euros) will also be appealed against in an appropriate fashion.
Speaking of Gusinsky's claim that his arrest was unfounded, Laptev recalled that the tycoon had repeatedly failed to show up at the Prosecutor's Office for interrogation and eventually fled the country. These events proved fears that the tycoon may try to escape prosecution, he said. He explained that when choosing pre-trial detention as a prevention measure for Gusinsky, the Prosecutor General's Office kept in mind his dual citizenship (Russia and Israel) and the large amounts of money (much of it allegedly obtained by fraud) in his foreign bank accounts.
The granting of amnesty and the termination of legal action at the investigation stage were possible only on Gusinsky's consent. By giving his consent to clemency, he would have recognized himself guilty of crime, but the proceedings against him would have been stopped, Laptev explained.
