Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Michael Kapoustin
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Prison
The Minister for Foreign Affairs
Serbia and Montenegro
Belgrade, Serbia
Care of
EMBASSY OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
17, Blackburn Avenue
Ottawa Ontario KIN 8A2 CANADA
APPLICATION
FOR ASSISTANCE
IN A COLLECTIVE COMPLAINT
under Rule 19 Rules of Procedure European Committee of Social Rights
PART VII
Collective Complaints Procedure
From Citizens of Serbia and Montenegro and other Non-Bulgarian Offenders
AGAINST
The Republic of Bulgaria
The Complaint alleges against the Republic of Bulgaria inter alia violations of the non-discrimination Preamble of
the European Social Charter and the rights of the individual and the family to free movement and social, legal and
economic protection when read with the Preamble. The Applicants are alleging a widespread discrimination against
non-Bulgarian Offenders both in law and in practice in the fields of Bulgarian criminal law, observing of treaty bona
fides, and right to the movement of persons, [prison] housing, education and employment while deprived of liberty in
Bulgaria. The Republic of Bulgaria refusing to observe its positive obligation as a Council of Europe member in
guaranteeing the right of equal access and fair application of Bulgaria’s national laws and international agreements to
those Offenders who are not citizens of Bulgaria and also having a property status insufficient to settle financial
obligations in Bulgaria. The Applicant(s) believing that the democratically elected governments of the Council of
Europe should not tolerate another member state, the Republic of Bulgaria, relying on the criteria of [non-Bulgarian]
nationality and property status as a casus for segregating and isolating citizens of other Council of Europe member
states (the foreign “Offenders”) from legal rights and social protections as are protected by international treaty law.
The Applicant here, one Nikolai Vasich, a citizen Serbia and Montenegro, of belongs to that group of foreign
Offenders suffering and continuing to suffer the injustice and indignity of physical segregation and legal isolation
from the protections of law. And this only because as a citizen of Serbia and Montenegro and having a property
status unacceptable to the Government of Bulgaria.
In the Republic of Bulgaria refusing to recognise physical segregation and legal isolation of foreign Offenders as a
form of discrimination it has committed a breach of international law and it is in violation of its positive obligations
to the Council of Europe. As a result the Applicant(s) turn to the other Council member states and the Council of
Europe Committee for Social Right to ascertain if such a refusal is consistent with the Council’s Charter and other
international laws.
The posited question is the following. Does the Council of Europe endorse the Bulgarian government’s practice of an
Offender’s nationality, property and public status creating legal rights different from and less than those other
offenders who citizens of Bulgaria when such rights are governed by the same national laws and international treaties
and notwithstanding that neither Bulgarian national law or international treaty makes such distinction when
determining the positive obligations and negatives restrictions agreed to by Member States for their guaranteeing
equal individual rights?
Michael Kapoustin
Citizen of Canada
10th Prisoners Group
Sofia Central Penitentiary
Sofia Bulgaria
M. Kapoustin Page 4 6/28/2005
Table of Contents
Request to the Minister for Foreign Affairs............................................................................. 6
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 27
The Minister for Foreign Affairs for the Government of Serbia and
Montenegro is petitioned to consider submitting for the Applicants a
Collective Complaint against the Republic of Bulgaria before the Council of
Europe Committee of Social Rights (hereinafter the “Committee”) and the
European Union’s Commissioner for Justice and Human Rights (hereinafter
the “Commissioner”).
If the Government of Serbia and Montenegro refuses to act form its citizen
Mr. Vasich and instead refers this Application to an NGO, then that NGO must
be registered and qualified for the submitting of such complaints before the
Council of Europe.
First from the application, legal interpretation and practice surrounding what is
a cabinet minister’s [Minister for Justice] decree imposing an Order for the
[physical] segregation and [legal] isolation from Bulgarian laws those
Offenders who are not citizens or residents of Bulgaria. Physical segregation
and isolation from national law according to nationality, property or public
status is expressly forbidden by the Bulgarian Constitution and other national
laws, however it continues as an official Government of Bulgaria policy in
force prior to the present Bulgarian Constitution’s non-discrimination
provision;
No Factual Dispute
When replying to the Applicants’ complaints, the Bulgarian Minister for
Justice has admitted to the existence of a Government of Bulgaria policy
and practice of affecting only the rights and obligations of foreign
Offenders.
That rights and obligations affected by the nationality, property or public
status of an Offender are in the areas of his equal access to certain articles of
Bulgarian national law, judicial procedures and international treaties.
The Bulgarian Minister for Justice confirms in his letters that nationality,
property and public status of an Offender will determine his legal rights and
obligations and also the obligations of the Bulgarian State’s to that
Offender.
Bulgaria’s Deputy Minister for Justice did not dispute the Applicants’
allegations of their being “segregated” from housing and employment and
“isolated” from social and other remedial opportunities a part of the
Bulgarian Law on the Executions of Punishments.
Therefore no factual dispute exists between the Applicants and the
Government of the Republic of Bulgaria as concerns a policy and practice
of discrimination affecting only the rights and obligations of foreign
citizens, Offenders, in the Republic of Bulgaria.
There appears no [reasonable] explanation from the Deputy Minister for
Justice as to why it is necessary for the Government of Bulgaria to impose a
policy of segregation and isolation according to nationality.
The Deputy Minister for Justice RB identifies in his letter that the Bulgarian
Parliament has not legislated a positive obligation for applying the Law for
the Execution of Punishments to foreign Offenders in the same way as it is
applied to Offenders who are citizens of Bulgaria.
When questioned about this in the field or housing and the harshness in the
type of imprisonment foreign Offenders must endure, the Deputy Bulgarian
Minister for Justice RB writes that the national “law gives no reason for the
relocation [transfer] of foreign citizens” by the Ministry for Justice – Main
Directorate for the Execution of Punishments RB “to prison communities of
the open and transitional type” (“няма законова основание за
преместване на чуждите граждани в затворнически общежития
от открит и преходен тип”).
No explanation is given Deputy Bulgarian Minister for Justice RB, a former
criminal court justice, of why the Bulgarian Law for the Execution of
Punishments is according to him required to have separate provisions
and different application for to Offenders who are not citizens of
Bulgaria.
Conspicuously absent is an explanation from the Deputy Bulgarian Minister
for Justice RB of why the other parts of the Bulgarian Law for the Execution
of Punishments continue to apply to foreign Offenders when there is absent
from them a provision for applying the law to foreign citizens.
First, the Government for the Republic of Bulgaria Ministry for Justice
refuses to provide gainful employment to [foreign] Offenders [see above
“segregation and isolation” of foreign Offenders from “housing and places
of labour”]; and
Second because foreign Offenders once released, are to be deported from
the Republic of Bulgaria and denied the right of return.
And equally absurd is that a foreign Offenders has “not been rehabilitated”
until he pays the Republic of Bulgaria the fine and court costs imposed with
the criminal sentence against them, ergo nationality and property status of
the Offender are to determine his eligibility for parole.
Bulgarian Discrimination is Systematic and Systemic
Proceeding from the above facts and the written admissions of direct
discriminations made by agencies of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Applicants
have reasonably concluded a systematic policy and systemic wide practice of
discrimination in the abusing of foreign citizens imprisoned in Bulgaria to be
the following.
That the Ministry for Justice, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Prosecutors
General for the Republic of Bulgaria are each admitting and insisting before
Council of Europe member states and Canada that;
That according to Bulgaria it is reasonable for citizens of other member states
and Canada to be segregated and isolated from Bulgarian national laws and
social protections solely because they are not citizens of Bulgaria;
That according to Bulgaria it is reasonable for citizens of other member states
and Canada to have the affective term of their imprisonment revised upward by
employees of the Ministry for Justice, the District Prosecutor and a District
Judge members of a “secret tribunal” [prison Committees according to Art. 17
of the Law for the Execution of Punishments]. It reasonable and lawful for
Offenders citizens of other member states and Canada if having unpaid debts
M. Kapoustin Page 17 6/28/2005
That according to Bulgaria it is reasonable and “right” the Ministry for Justice
RB to keep “secret” the names, facts, grounds and decisions of a “secret
tribunal” formed under Article 17 Bulgarian Law on the Execution of
Punishments. The Ministry for Justice protecting its prison employees and
officials, prosecutors and judges from accountability and the possibility of legal
recourse or use of judicial remedy by an Offender alleging to be the victim of
malfeasance [inter alia discrimination, corruption, abuse of office, defamation,
conflict of interest et al] or misfeasance by an official;
That according to Bulgaria it is reasonable for citizens of other member states
and Canada to remain incarcerated in Bulgaria solely as a result of their having
a property and public status such that the Government of Bulgaria is unwilling
to permit their departure from Bulgaria for transfer under international
conventions or allow for their deportation one having attained the right of
probation [parole];
That according to Bulgaria it is reasonable for citizens of other member states
and Canada to continue to be imprisonment in Bulgaria as a legitimate
Bulgarian State tool of coercion for the purpose of collecting of money owed to
either the Bulgarian State or a Bulgarian citizen [see the previously cited
28.07.2004 practice DECISION Reg. № 3679/04; 2.12.2004 practice
DECISION Reg. № 42160/04; December 11th, 2004 DECISION № 28730/04
and others of the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office];
Prevailing Bulgaria law makes a mockery of the
Ministry for Justice.
According to Bulgarian national law Officials and employees of the Ministry
for Justice RB Sofia prison participating in the Committee are public servants.
More damming is the law according to same Article 17 of the Law on the
Execution of Punishments prison “…commissions [committee are], comprised
by: (1) the chairman – the chief of the prison or reformatory, and members –
judge from the county court, deputy chiefs, representative of the supervision
commission and the psychologist of the prison or the reformatory; (2) the
inspectors for social activity and reforming work, when the situation with the
prisoners in their group is considered; ….(4) At the sessions of the commission
a prosecutor from the regional prosecutor’s office shall be present” and their
identities intended to be public.
M. Kapoustin Page 18 6/28/2005
And according to Article 415§1 abstract (2) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of
Procedure2 the prison Committee formed under Article 17 of the Law on the
Execution of Punishments this prison Committee have a public function of
proposing Offenders to the City Court for possible probation (parole).
Nowhere is there a provision in the national law for the Minister for Justice RB
to withhold [keep secret] the identities of its employees at the Ministry of
Justice – Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments Sofia Central
Penitentiary.
Equally as true is the fact of no provision in the abovecited law allowing the
Minister for Justice RB to withhold [keep secret] the actions taken by the
Committee as can be determined from its Minutes or the legal and factual
grounds for decisions affecting legal rights of foreign citizens.
Bulgarian national law appears to consider prison Committees formed
according Article 17 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments as
administrative tribunals and therefore subject to directions and oversight of the
Ministry for Justice RB and the courts,
Any administrative or quasi judicial action or decision taken by this Committee
or its members and affecting legal rights and obligations of a particular
Offender must be open to view by the affected party.
Any Rulings or Decisions taken by prosecutors and judges participating in these
Committees are required by law to be subject to appeal or judicial control and
public scrutiny for correctness, truthfulness, reasonableness and lawfulness.
The Committee itself has no independent judicial authority or function. It and
its membership cannot be considered impartial since its members are Ministry
of Justice officials and prison employees subject and answerable to the orders of
their immediate supervisors.
In the cases of foreign Offenders the proposal to the City Court by either the
Committee or Sofia Prosecutors Office are made on the occurrence of a foreign
Offender having formally satisfying the requirements of Article 70§1 CC id est
complete half or more of his criminal sentence.
2
Art. 415. (1) Proposals for conditional release under Articles 70 and 71 of the
Penal Code may make:
1. The regional prosecutor, respectively the military prosecutor, in the place of
execution of the punishment;
2. The Committee under Art. 17 of the Execution of Punishments Act.
M. Kapoustin Page 19 6/28/2005
3
Относно общаване практиката на съдилищата по условното предсрочно
освобождаване от изтърпяване на наказание.
Also the Minister for Justice RB refuses to provide materials on how these
“secret tribunals” have conduced meetings, on what documents, other facts or
law they have relied on for their conclusions.
It is a result of this policy and practice of “secrecy” that the Applicants now
seek to allege before the Committee that Bulgarian prison administrators,
district prosecutors and judges who participate in these “secret tribunals” are
acting inscienter to collectively impose a harsher punishment and prison term
on all Offenders who are not citizens of Bulgaria, have unpaid debts and public
reputations.
From the written explanations of the Minister for Justice RB it appears to be
irrefutable that these “secret” Committees have a “quasi-judicial” function as
prison “tribunals”. Particularly when one considers the presence and
participation of a district prosecutor and district judge at these Committees
whose identities are kept “secret” by the Minister for Justice from the foreign
Offenders and their embassies.
The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and other national laws do not
provide for the formation of “secret tribunals” having a judicial or quasi-
judicial jurisdiction and allowing for the secret alternation of a criminal
sentence or the secret imposition of a sanction extending the term of an
Offender’s imprisonment. Therefore, according to law, the Committees formed
according to Art. 17 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments should not
be able to alter upward criminal sentences or impose additional criminal
sanctions or harsher punishments.
However, the facts and practices speak to the alternative. Committee members
and the district prosecutor succeed in altering criminal sentenced indirectly,
first by maintaining the secrecy of the Committee’s members; second by
Committee sessions being conducted under rules of secrecy; third by not being
required to provide written reasons for their decisions and fourth by negative
decisions taken against the [foreign] Offender not being subject to any form of
judicial control, review or remedy [id est only decisions positively affecting the
legal rights of an Offender can be subjected to judicial control [Art. 415 and the
following CCP]. Malfeasances, misfeasances, other misconducts or errors o law
or omission by the Committee or its members are not subjected to any
administrative or judicial control.
At the time of this Application there are 29 of the 102 Applicants who have
completed the “affective term” [more than half] of their criminal sentences.
And who according to Bulgarian national law [Article 70 §1 CC] have acquired
the legal right to a judicial review for alteration of the remaining part of their
sentence to probation [parole].
M. Kapoustin Page 21 6/28/2005
4
Art. 70. (1) (Amend., SG 153/98) The court can rule a probationary release ahead of
term for the remaining part of the punishment of imprisonment regarding a convicted with
exemplary conduct and honest attitude to the work, and who has proven his reformation and
has served actually no less than half of the imposed punishment.
M. Kapoustin Page 22 6/28/2005
between the “reforming influence” of the “penalty fine” and the criteria for
a [foreign] Offender’s satisfying the rehabilitation criteria of Article 70§1
CC to be inseparable.
Applicant Reasons
What flows naturally from this reasoning of Bulgaria’s Prosecutors General
proves to be the following.
That official Government of Bulgaria policy and practice allows for property
status [of a foreign Offender] to determine in advance what are his legal right
when seeking access to a judicial review of his parole.
Bulgarian Prosecutors insisting they are legally bound to refuse applications for
judicial review of parole [Article 415 and the following procedures of the
Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure] when a foreign Offender has any
outstanding private debts, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary or the fact
of the State of Bulgaria having or no evidence of the Offender or his family
withholding information on their property, income or other resources.
The Persecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria has refused each
of the foreign Offenders requests for transfer under the Convention.
The Persecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria doing so solely
according to the criteria of a [foreign] Offender’s property status, or at
least not until the families of the Offenders pay state imposed fines.
Something the Persecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria knows
or should know to be impossible for the Offender or his family.
Offenders have recognized their property status to be in most cases (except
that of the Canadian citizen Kapoustin) as the sole obstruction to their
transfer under the Convention.
As a result, each of the 63 [out of 93 foreign] Offenders seeking transfer
have at one time or another petitioned the Minister for Finance for the
Republic of Bulgaria to declare their individual fines as “uncollectible” and
so clear the way for either of the following.
(1) The transferring of the collection by the Persecutors General for the
Republic of Bulgaria to the administrating State under the European
Convention on the Validity of Criminal Sentences, or;
families who are not Bulgarian citizens, and have a certain property and social
status.
In response to individual complaints, the Ministry for Justice, the Prosecutors
General and Supreme Courts of Cassation for the RB admit to the complained
of policy and practice id est the determination of rights and obligations
according to nationality, property or social status of the Offender.
However, each of the aforesaid have responded that restricting [segregation and
isolation from] legal rights available to foreign Offenders to be Government
policy and practice not within the ambit of the recognized categories of
discrimination [see inter alia Decision № 101/November 11 2004 Supreme
Cassation Court RB Case № 156/2004 page 2; Decision № 71/July 7 2004
Supreme Cassation Court RB Case № 148/2004 Private Appeal of the
Applicant Kapoustin v. Ministry for Justice RB – discrimination according to
property and social status; a l'impossible nul n'est tenu5].
5
No one is bound by what is impossible
M. Kapoustin Page 27 6/28/2005
Final Remedy
The Government of Bulgaria and its national courts persist in refusing to
acknowledge any harm or injury to the affected group from the complained of
policies and practices of direct and indirect discriminations.
Conclusions
The policies and practices identified are inconsistent with the Charter and
Bulgarian national law. Relying on nationality, property and social status as
providing a reason to derogate from valid social, economic and legal protections
M. Kapoustin Page 28 6/28/2005
is inconsistent with Article 16 of the Charter when read with the non-
discrimination clause of the Charter preamble.
Also, the Minister for Justice and Prosecutors General for the Republic of
Bulgaria have exceeded their constitutional jurisdiction when “creating law” in
policies or practices for “segregation and isolation” according to nationality,
property and social status. Policies and practices expressly prohibited by
national law [see as authority Article 4 of the Law for Protection against
Discrimination].
6
(law) thing speaks for itself
7
Article 3
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law
and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realization of
the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter
M. Kapoustin Page 29 6/28/2005
(6) Right of the Family – Positive Obligation id est that the Republic of
Bulgaria is not observing its positive obligation to guarantee to
citizens of Serbia and Montenegro, other European States and Canada
M. Kapoustin Page 31 6/28/2005
The Applicants are concerned that [foreign] Offenders who are “well
known” to the Bulgarian media and whose families have insufficient
resources to settle contractual or debt obligations to Bulgarian citizens
or the State are being routinely denied access to the Convention and
their requests for transfer;
(7) Right of the Family – Negative Restriction id est that the Republic of
Bulgaria is not observing the negative restrictions against unequal
access and negative bias in the application of Bulgaria national laws
[the Criminal Code] to convicted citizens of Serbia and Montenegro
other European States and Canada and having completed half or more of
their sentence in Bulgaria.
The Applicants are concerned that they are routinely denied social
rights and legal protections and procedures otherwise made
available to Bulgarian first time offenders having served better than
half of their criminal sentence,
Bulgarian national law requires that every two months there be an
administrative review of an Offender’s right to unsupervised home leave
or a judicial review of that Offenders possible parole. Bulgaria’s
Criminal Code and correctional law [Law for the Execution of
Punishments] thereby acting to preserve the necessary conditions for
the full development of a family [Article 16 Charter] and the
reintegration into society of a Bulgarian Offender.
According to Bulgarian national law unsupervised home leave or
judicial review of parole is a positive obligation of the State in cases
where Offenders have formally served half or more of their sentence and
M. Kapoustin Page 32 6/28/2005
Michael Kapoustin
Citizen of Canada
10th Prisoners Group
Sofia Central Penitentiary
Sofia Bulgaria
ДО: СОФИЙСКА ГРАДСКА ПРОКУРАТУРА
ТУК
МОЛБА
1
Тези РАЗПОРЕЖДАНИЯ на прокуратурата могат да бъдат намерени в
ПРОТОКОЛА от заседанията на Комисията при ЦСЗ през август, октомври и декември
2004г. и февруари 2005г. и пряко засягат моите законни права и задължения.
Прилагам копие от мое предишно запитване до директора на ГДИН при
МП – г-н Петър Василев, в отговор на което бях насочен към СГП.
Според твърденията на ГДИН при МП, СГП е компетентният орган, който може
да ми предостави информация по следните искания:
2
на Комисията на ЦСЗ през август, октомври и декември 2004г. и февруари
2005г. и се съдържат в мотивите на председателя на Комисията на основание чл.
15, ал. 4 от ППЗИН, където той изразява заключенията на Комисията относно
прилагането на законовата процедура по чл. 415, ал. 1, т. 2 от НПК и условното
предсрочно освобождаване спрямо лицата, които иначе формално отговарят на
изискванията на чл. 70, ал. 1 от НК.
1
Текстът е преведен от английски на български език, поради което е възможно известно несъответствие
в думите, но не и в смисъла им - бел. прев.
3
силата на поздаконов нормативен акт, който по своята същност
противоречи на закон, inter alia2 Закона за защита срещу дискриминацията?
7. Освен това и в същия контекст, нека СГП да потвърди пред мен, дали в случай
че директорът или заместник-директорът, или друг член на Комисията при ЦСЗ
предприеме някакво действие да препоръча за условно предсрочно
освобождаване пред СГС по процедурата на чл. 415, ал. 1, т. 2 от НПК някое
лице от горепосочената група, това представлява наказуемо престъпно или
друго деяние.
8. Дали един ИСДВР извършва наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя отказже да
изпълни своето служебно задължение съобразно вътрешното законодателство,
inter alia чл. 17, ал. 1 от ЗИН във вр. чл. 70, ал. 1 от НК и не представи пред
комисията по чл. 17 от ЗИН лице, отговарящо на условията.
9. Дали един ИСДВР извършва наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя превиши
властта си и прилага условното предсрочно освобождаване според
неговата/нейната лична преценка относно тежестта на влязла в сила наказателна
присъда, а не ограничава преценката си единствено до формалните изисквания
на закона, по-точно чл. 70, ал. 1 от НК във връзка с научните методи,
установени от МП съобразно чл. 17а, ал. 2 от ЗИН.
ОСВЕН ТОВА и съобразно точния текст на чл. 291,ал.1, втора хипотеза на НК,
моля СГП да ме уведоми за следното:
10. Дали един ИСДВР извършва наказуемо деяние, когато на основание чл. 17а от
ЗИН той или тя съзнателно възпрепятства условното предсрочно освобождаване
на конкретно лице, като изготвя подвеждащо неясна, неточна и дори невярна
оценка на това лице и на риска, който неговото условно предсрочно
освобождаване би представлявало за българското общество.
11. Дали председателят или друг член на Комисията, формирана на основание чл. 17
от ЗИН извършва наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя не изпълнява служебното
си задължение съобразно чл. 15, ал. 2 от ППЗИН и отказва да приеме за
разглеждане от комисията на писмена препоръка за условно предсрочно
освобождаване, изготвена от ИСДВР.
2
Лат. – измежду други такива - бел. прев.
4
12. Дали председателят или друг член на комисията по чл. 17 от ЗИН извършва
наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя не изпълнява служебното си задължение
съобразно чл. 15, ал. 4 от ППЗИН като отказва или пропуска да даде своите
правни или фактически мотиви за да откаже на едно лице процедурата по чл.
415, ал. 1, т. 3 от НПК.
13. Дали председателят или друг член на комисията по чл. 17 от ЗИН извършва
наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя злоупотребява със своето служебно
положение и НАРЕЖДА на ИСДВР да не препоръчва за условно предсрочно
освобождаване конкретно лице на основания, различни от тези, предвидени в
закона.
14. Дали председателят или друг член на комисията по чл. 17 от ЗИН извършва
наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя превишава своята законна власт и
компетентност като отказва да приложи условното предсрочно освобождаване
или процедурата по чл. 415, ал. 1, т. 1 от НПК спрямо лицата, на които според
неговата лична преценка осъждащият съд е наложил лека присъда.
ОСВЕН ТОВА и на основание точния текст на чл. 291, ал. 1, втора хипотеза от
НК моля СГП да ме уведоми за следното:
15. Дали председателят или друг член на комисията по чл. 17 от ЗИН извършва
наказуемо деяние, когато той или тя по чл. 15, ал. 4 от ППЗИН преднамерено
възпрепятства определено лице да получи условно предсрочно освобождаване,
като сочи мотиви, чието съдържание относно правото и фактите е преднамерено
подвеждащо поради неяснота, неточност или дори неверни твърдения.
16. Първо, ИСДВР при ЦСЗ настоятелно повтарят пред мен и други лица, че
подлежат на евентуално административно наказание и дори такова по НК от
страна на СГП, в случай че спазят само точния текст на чл. 70, ал. 1 от НК и при
изпълнението на задълженията си по чл. 17а от ЗИН препоръчат за условно
предсрочно освобождаване пред комисията при затвора името на едно или
няколко лица, намиращи се под тяхно ръководство, които отговарят на
формалните изисквания на чл. 70 от НК, но не са в състояние (което е
различно от не желаят) да заплатят задълженията си към Държавата (или към
ФЛ).
5
18. Трето, очевидно е, че моите искания, така както са посочени по-горе,
произтичат от следните обективни наблюдения, т.е. че никъде в разпоредбите на
НК ( чл. 70) и никъде в разпоредбите на ЗИН или на ППЗИН не се явяват думи
като inter alia „уреждане”, „незаплатени”, „глоба”, „заплащане”, „разноски”,
„голям остатък”, „чужденец”, „националност”, „дългове” или израза “се налага с
цел да го поправи и превъзпита. Неизпълнението на част от наложеното на
осъдения наказание, в случая глобата, влияе върху преценката дали той се е
поправил” (вж. Писмо на ВКП с изх. № 28730 от 11.12.2004г. – прокурор Б.
Тошев).
6
докаже, че той се е превъзпитал или че не се е превъзпитал през времето на
неговото лишаване от свобода.
20. Пето, всякакво правно мислене като това, заявено от inter alio3 - прокурор Б.
Тошев в горепосоченото писмо и на което се позовават от СГП и ИСДВР в ЦСЗ
не се кредитира в науката и не се подкрепя от литературата и практиката,
свързани с превъзпитанието на престъпниците.
ИЗВОДИ
3
Лат. Измежду други хора - бел. прев.
7
2. Факта, че ГДИН при МП и всички ИСДВР и членове на комисията при ЦСЗ са
посочили пред мен и други лишени от свобода чужденци, отговарящи на
формалните изисквания на чл. 70, ал. 1 от НК, че това става по
РАЗПОРЕЖДАНЕ на прокуратурата и че това е политика и практика,
установена от СГП да не се прилага условно предсрочно освобождаване спрямо
мен и другите засегнати лица;
С уважение,
Майкъл Капустин
За верността на превода
Мариана Русева Радулова
в.л. № 1118 по списъка на специалистите,
утвърдени за вещи лица от Комисията по
чл. 200ж ал. 1, ЗСВ,обн. Д.В. бр. 17/2004г.
8
ДО: СОФИЙСКА ГРАДСКА ПРОКУРАТУРА
ТУК
МОЛБА
The following requests for information are within the Constitutional competence of the SCPO
according to Article 127of the Bulgarian Constitution and the information requested has the
legal character of public information within the meaning of Article 2 para 1 of the Law on
Access to Public Information.
The information from the SCPO is necessary for the Petitioner to “form his own opinion on
the activity of subjects obligated according to the law”.
According to the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of Punishments, the
Office of the Prosecutor has issued a certain ORDER or ORDERS establishing what are
according to the Directorate for the Execution of Punishments mandatory policies and
practices for application of conditional early release by Inspectors for Social Activity and
Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary when observing their duty according to
Article 17a of the of the “ЗИН”.
These same SCPO policy and practice ORDER or ORDERS concerning the application of
conditional early release according to the Directorate for the Execution of Punishments also
applies to Chairman and other members of the Commission as formed under Article 17 of the
“ЗИН” when applying the procedure of Article 415para1 item 2 CCP to persons having
formally satisfied the legal requirements of Article 70para1 CC and therefore, according to
the national law eligible for conditional early release.
These ORDERS of the Prosecutor are to be found on the RECORD of the August, October,
and December 2004 and February 2005 sittings of the Central Sofia Penitentiary Commission
and directly affect the legal rights and obligations of this Petitioner.
The Petitioner provides a copy of his earlier request to Ministry for Justice – Directorate
for the Execution of Punishments Director Peter Vassilev and in reply to which the
Petitioner was directed to the SCPO.
Proceeding on the representations of the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution
of Punishments, it is therefore the SCPO that is the competent authority to provide
information to the Petitioner on the following requests.
1. What is the date and the number of the Prosecutor ORDER or PRACTICE
DIRECTIVE to the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments - Central Sofia Penitentiary establishing the current policy and practice
whereby Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [the “ИСДВР”] at the
Central Sofia Penitentiary are to interpret items 1.1 to 1.3 as listed below to be
objective characteristics requiring Inspectors to not apply conditional early release and
the procedure under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” to those persons deprived of liberty and
foreign citizens who have;
The above policy and practice is objectified and documented [id est exists as fact and
not supposition] in individual written reports prepared according to Article 17a of the
Law on the Execution of Punishments by Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming
Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary when expressing his or her conclusion on
application of conditional early release to those persons having otherwise formally
satisfied all the requirements of Article 70para1 CC.
SHOULD NO SUCH ACT exist, then the SCPO to so state in his reply to the
Petitioner.
The above policy and practice is objectified and documented [id est exists as fact and
not supposition] on the RECORD of the August, October and December 2004 and
February 2005 sittings of the Central Sofia Penitentiary Commission prepared as
motives of the Commission Chairman according to Article 15para4 of the Regulations
for Application of the “ЗИН” when expressing the Commission’s conclusion on
application of the legal procedure under Article 415para1 item 2 CCP and conditional
early release to those persons having otherwise formally satisfied all the requirements
of Article 70para1 CC.
SHOULD NO SUCH ACT exists, then the SCPO to so state in his reply to the
Petitioner.
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE THE PETITIONER REQUESTS, and the
Prosecutor is required шд provide, information confirming or denying the existence of a
published or unpublished ORDINANCE or of any written ADMINISTRATIVE ACT
whereby it is made an offence actionable by the SCPO under Article 387 or Article 388 CC
for Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [the “ИСДВР”] and members of the
Commission formed under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” to fail or refuse to “fulfil his or her
officials duties” to observe the ORDERS of the Prosecutor establishing the policy and practice
announced in writing by Director Peter Vassilev on Pages 7 of the English Language text of
the “Information Brochure as Elaborated with the Financial Support of the European
Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights”. Director Vassilev writing;
For clarity the [ ] and comments have been added by the Petitioner.
5. Within the context of request № 5, the Prosecutor to inform the Petitioner if Inspectors
for Social Activity and Reforming Work [the “ИСДВР”] and members of the
Commission formed under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” are liable to criminal sanction by
the SCPO according to Article 387 or Article 388 CC if in his or her capacity as an
official performs an action that he or she is prohibited from performing by virtue
only of an ORDER from the Prosecution or by virtue of an ORDINANCE that by
its legal nature violates a law inter alia The Law for Protection from
Discrimination?
7. Furthermore and within the same context as request № 7 the SCPO to confirm that it is
a criminal or otherwise actionable offence for an the Director or Deputy Director or
other members of the prison Commission at the Central Sofia Penitentiary to
undertake any action whereby he or she recommends for conditional early release to
the Sofia City Court under the procedure of Article 415para1 item 2 of the CCP any
person belonging to the above group.
ALTERNATIVELY, and according to the exact wording of Article 387para1 third and
fourth abstracts of the CC id est an official who “does not fulfil his official duties or stretches
his or her authority” the SCPO is requested to inform the Petitioner of the following.
10. Is an Inspector for Social Activity and Reforming Work committing an actionable
offence when according to Article 17a of the “ЗИН” he or she acts to intentional
obstruct a specific person’s conditional early release by issuing a misleadingly vague,
inaccurate or even untrue assessment of that person and the risk his or her condition
early release would represent to Bulgarian society?
FURTHERMORE, and within the same context as requests № 5 thru to № 10 above and
the law according to Article 387 and Article 388 CC the SCPO is requested to inform the
Petitioner of the following.
11. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under Article 17
of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she does not fulfil his or
her official duty to Article 15para2 of the Regulations for Application of the “ЗИН”
and refuses to accept for review by the Commission a written recommendation for
conditional early release made by an Inspector for Social Activity and Reforming
Work?
12. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under Article 17
of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she does not fulfil his or
her official duty to Article 15para4 of the Regulations for Application of the “ЗИН”
when refusing or failing to provide his own legal and factual motives for refusing to a
person the procedure under Article 415para1 item 3 CCP?
13. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under Article 17
of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she abuses his or her
official status and ORDERS an Inspector for Social Activity and Reforming Work to
for reasons other than those established in law not recommend for condition early
release to the Commission a specific person?
14. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under Article 17
of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she stretches his or her
legal authority and competence by refusing to apply conditional early release or the
procedure under Article 415para1 item 1 CCP to those persons that according to his or
her personal assessment the convicting court has imposed to lenient a criminal
sentence on the person?
15. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under Article 17
of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when under Article 15para4 of the
Regulations for Application of the “ЗИН” he or she intentionally obstructs a specific
person from conditional early release by issuing motives whose legal and factual
content is intentionally misleadingly due to vagueness, is inaccurate or even untrue?
16. First, Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Prison
persistently have repeated insisted to the Petitioner and others that they are subject to
possible administrative or even criminal sanctions by the SCPO should they observe
only the exact wording of the law according to Article 70para1 CC and in the course
of their duties according to Article 17a of the “ЗИН” recommend for conditional early
release to the prison Commission the name or names of a person or persons under their
supervision who have formally satisfied all the requirements of Article 70para CC but
are unable [as opposed to unwilling] to pay their dues to the State [or to physical
persons].
17. Second, that according to numerous oral explanations given to the Petitioner by
representatives of the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments - Central Sofia Prison it is the SCPO and SCaPO who have established
and are responsible for the policy and practice at the Central Sofia Prison for
conditional early release of a foreign person to be determined by he or she having
settled all financial obligations to Bulgaria.
According to the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of Punishments
it is the SCPO that has ORDER all Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work
at the prison to consider the financial portion of the criminal judgment id est the fine
and court costs as having been “applied by the Court with a remedial and
rehabilitative intent [се налага с цел да го поправи и превъзпита. [see SCaPO letter
reg.№ 28730 dated 11/12/2004 -Prosecutor B. Toshev]”.
18. Third, the Petitioner’s requests as they appear above arise most obviously from the
following objective legal observation id est that no where in the legislated text of the
Criminal Code (Art. 70 CC) and no where in the legislated text of the Law on the
Execution of Punishments or Regulations for Application of the Law on the Execution
of Punishments do the following words or phrases appears inter alia “settlement”,
“unpaid”, “fine”, “payment”, “costs”, “notable remainder [голеем остатък]”, “foreign
citizen”, “non-Bulgarian”, “nationality”, “debts” or the phrase “се налага с цел да го
поправи и превъзпита. Неизпълнението на част от наложеното на осъдения
наказание, в случая глобата, влияе върху преценката дали той се е поправил [see
SCaPO letter reg.№ 28730 dated 11/12/2004 -Prosecutor B. Toshev]”.
19. Four, the Petitioner’s requests for the required information become all the more
poignant when the SCPO considers the legal fact that there is no published law,
normative act, ordinance, Interpretive Decision published and resulting from a General
Meeting of the Criminal College of the Supreme Cassation Court and no published or
written ORDER issued by the Minister for Justice or the Prosecutors General for the
RB wherein conditional early release and “exemplary behaviour” are conditional and
respectively determined by a person deprived of liberty having sufficient financial
resources from his or her crime to pay the separate and not cumulative [see Article
37para1 CC] sanction of a “fine” and court “costs”.
This therefore makes the SCPO and Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the
Execution of Punishments - Central Sofia Penitentiary policy and practice of
interpreting the payment of a “fine” and court “costs” as a demonstration of the
“reforming” and “rehabilitation” affects of a convict’s deprivation of liberty is first
and foremost a legal absurd.
Secondly, it is unlawful and violates a number of national and international laws for
the SCPO to apply as a measure of coercion to secure payment of financial obligation
the continued deprivation of liberty of person beyond the terms legislators envisioned
when enacting Article 70para1 CC. The current SCPO policy and practice in doing so
is not, as represented by SCaPO letter reg.№ 28730 dated 11/12/2004 from Prosecutor
B. Toshev for the continued “rehabilitation” of the convict. Any reasonable person
having experience with the Bulgarian prison system knows or should know that as a
practical matter it is impossible and absurdly unreasonable particularly for the SCPO
to expect that a convict while confined to prison will secure an income and property
sufficient to settle a significant fine and court cost should the sentencing court have
not already seized sufficient property as part of the criminal sentence and according to
Article 156a CCP.
20. Five, that any such legal reasoning as that stated by inter alio -Prosecutor B. Toshev in
the said letter and relied on by the SCPO and Inspectors for Social Activity and
Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary is a scientifically discredited one
and unsupported by any literature or practice in the science of criminal rehabilitation.
21. Six, that the policy and practice as announced by Director Peter Vassilev and as
established by the SCPO are inconsistent with Article 47para2 CC. The Inspectors for
Social Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary are made de
facto public executors id est Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work and
the prison Commission are to press convicts personally to pay fines and courts costs in
exchange for the application of conditional early release and the legal procedure under
Article 415para1 CCP.
It appears this SCPO practice and policy is inconsistent with the CC and the stated
function of Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [see Regulations for
application of the Law on the Execution of Punishments and the Law for Execution of
Punishments]. The text of Article 47para2 CC clearly and unambiguously states that
fines and court costs are “collected from the property” of the convict as secured by the
court [see Article 156a CCP] and according to Article 47para3 CC cannot be collected
from “chattels that cannot be sold” by the State.
CONCLUSIONS
The requested information is within the competence and legal purview of the SCPO.
The Petitioner is legally entitled to receive the requested information since it is necessary for
the Petitioner to determine his legal rights and the obligations of officials subject to the law,
inter alia if the facts and circumstances of certain conducts by Inspectors for Social Activity
and Reforming Work and the Commission members at the Central Sofia Penitentiary
affecting his Petitioner’s rights have the legal nature of an actionable offence and are
sufficient for the Petitioner’s filing of a formal criminal or civil complaint within the ambit of
possibly Article 282para1 CC or Article 387 and the following of the CC and possibly
291para1 CC.
If the Prosecution should refuse to provide the requested information on grounds of lacking
competent jurisdiction, then the Prosecutor is requested to forward the Petitioner’s
Application for Information and his requests to the authority having competence in such
matters.
Alternatively, should the Prosecutor accept jurisdiction but refuses to provide the requested
information on the grounds that the Petitioner is not entitled to such information for reasons of
law, then the SCPO to identify the exact law excusing the Prosecutor from providing the
information and what information exactly the Prosecutor cannot provide.
Finally, should the SCPO consider the questions as having the character of the Petitioner
requesting a legal opinion, the SCPO is respectfully reminded.
2. Of the fact that the Ministry for Justice Directorate for the Execution of Punishments
and all the Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work and Commission
members at the Central Sofia Penitentiary have identified to the Petitioner and to all
foreign and other persons deprived of liberty and having satisfied the formal
requirements of Article 70para1 CC, that it is at the Prosecutors’ ORDER and policy
and practice established by the SCPO that conditional early release is not to applied by
to this Petitioner and the other persons affected;
3. Of the fact that the Petitioner is requesting information on a practice and policy at the
Central Sofia Penitentiary established by the Prosecutor and not published as a part of
any law, ordinance or Council of Minster’s Decree and therefore it is only the SCPO
who can clarify the issuing authority for the complained of policy and practice;
4. Of the fact that without the requested information on the policy and practices ORDER
of the Prosecution to Central Sofia Penitentiary, the Petitioner cannot establish the
merit of the legal and factual grounds for his complaint, if any, and the relevant
procedure he should follow, civil, criminal or administrative;
5. Of the fact that the financial circumstances of the Petitioner as a person deprived of
liberty prevent him from retaining the services of an attorney and he is therefore
representing himself;
6. Of the fact that as a person deprived of liberty the Petitioner cannot access public data
banks or other published resources from which to secure the required public
information on Prosecution ORDERS and PRACTICE DIRECTIVES or on the
ORDERS and PRACTICE DIRECTIVES of other authorities affecting the legal right
and obligations of the Petitioner. As a result such information is available only directly
through the alleged source of the ORDERS and PRACTICE DIRECTIVES id est the
Prosecutor.
Should the SCPO not agree with the reasoning of the Petitioner and still refuses to provide the
requested information, then the SCPO should identify the authority responsible for providing
information on the actions and acts of the Prosecutor if not the Prosecutor.
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
Чрез: Социален началник
На 10-ти отряд
Централен Софийски Затвор
Деловодство
МОЛБА
От: М. Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен софийски затвор
10 та група
ТУК
НА ВНИМАНИЕТО НА ГЛАВНИЯ
ПРОКУРОР
Подадено днес,08.5.2005 г.
Подписано от Майкъл Капустин
ДО: СОФИЙСКА ГРАДСКА
ПРОКУРАТУРА
ТУК
НА ВНИМАНИЕТО НА ГЛАВНИЯ
ПРОКУРОР
МОЛБА
МОЛБА/PETITION
The following requests for information are within the Constitutional competence of the
SCPO according to Article 127 of the Bulgarian Constitution and the information
requested has the legal character of public information within the meaning of Article 2
para 1 of the Law on Access to Public Information.
The information from the SCPO is necessary for the Petitioner to “form his own
opinion on the activity of subjects obligated according to the law”.
According to the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of Punishments,
the Office of the Prosecutor has issued a certain ORDER or ORDERS establishing
what are according to the Directorate for the Execution of Punishments mandatory
policies and practices for application of conditional early release by Inspectors for
Social Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary when observing
their duty according to Article 17a of the of the “ЗИН”.
These same SCPO policy and practice ORDER or ORDERS concerning the application
of conditional early release according to the Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments also applies to Chairman and other members of the Commission as
formed under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” when applying the procedure of Article 415
para1 item 2 CCP to persons having formally satisfied the legal requirements of Article
70 para1 CC and therefore, according to the national law eligible for conditional early
release.
These ORDERS of the Prosecutor are to be found on the RECORD of the August,
October, and December 2004 and February 2005 sittings of the Central Sofia
Penitentiary Commission and directly affect the legal rights and obligations of this
Petitioner.
The Petitioner provides a copy of his earlier request to Ministry for Justice –
Directorate for the Execution of Punishments Director Peter Vassilev and in reply
to which the Petitioner was directed to the SCPO.
Proceeding on the representations of the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the
Execution of Punishments, it is therefore the SCPO that is the competent authority to
provide information to the Petitioner on the following requests.
1. What is the date and the number of the Prosecutor ORDER or PRACTICE
DIRECTIVE to the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments - Central Sofia Penitentiary establishing the current policy and
practice whereby Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [the
“ИСДВР”] at the Central Sofia Penitentiary are to interpret items 1.1 to 1.3 as
listed below to be objective characteristics requiring Inspectors to not apply
conditional early release and the procedure under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” to
those persons deprived of liberty and foreign citizens who have;
The above policy and practice is objectified and documented [id est exists as
fact and not supposition] in the individual written reports prepared according to
Article 17a of the Law on the Execution of Punishments by Inspectors for Social
Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary when expressing
his or her conclusion on application of conditional early release to those persons
having otherwise formally satisfied all the requirements of Article 70 para1 CC.
2. ALTERNATIVELY, if no such Prosecutors ORDER or ORDERS exists,
the SCPO is requested to inform the Petitioner that this is so and in the
Prosecutions reply to the Petitioner identify the law, ordinance, Council of
Ministers or Ministerial DECREE whereby conditional early release and the
procedure under Article 17 of the “ЗИН” is not to be applied by Inspectors for
Social Activity and Reforming Work to those foreign or other persons as
specified in items 1.1. through 1.3 above?
SHOULD NO SUCH ACT exist, then the SCPO to so state in his reply to the
Petitioner.
The above policy and practice is objectified and documented [id est exists as
fact and not supposition] on the RECORD of the August, October and
December 2004 and February 2005 sittings of the Central Sofia Penitentiary
Commission prepared as motives of the Commission Chairman according to
Article 15 para4 of the Regulations for Application of the “ЗИН” when
expressing the Commission’s conclusion on application of the legal procedure
under Article 415 para1 item 2 CCP and conditional early release to those
persons having otherwise formally satisfied all the requirements of Article 70
para 1 CC.
SHOULD NO SUCH ACT exists, then the SCPO to so state in his reply to the
Petitioner.
WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABOVE THE PETITIONER REQUESTS,
and the Prosecutor is required to provide, information confirming or denying the
existence of any published or unpublished ORDINANCE or of any written
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT whereby it is made an offence actionable by the SCPO
under Article 387 or Article 388 CC for Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming
Work [the “ИСДВР”] and members of the Commission formed under Article 17 of the
“ЗИН” to fail or refuse to “fulfill his or her officials duties” to observe the ORDERS of
the Prosecutor establishing the policy and practice announced in writing by Director
Peter Vassilev on Pages 7 of the English Language text of the “Information Brochure
as Elaborated with the Financial Support of the European Initiative for Democracy
and Human Rights”. Director Vassilev writing;
For clarity the [ ] and comments have been added by the Petitioner.
7. Furthermore and within the same context as request № 7 the SCPO to confirm
that it is a criminal or otherwise actionable offence for an the Director or
Deputy Director or other members of the prison Commission at the Central
Sofia Penitentiary to undertake any action whereby he or she recommends for
conditional early release to the Sofia City Court under the procedure of Article
415 para1 item 2 of the CCP any person belonging to the above group.
11. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under
Article 17 of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she does
not fulfill his or her official duty to Article 15 para 2 of the Regulations for
Application of the “ЗИН” and refuses to accept for review by the Commission a
written recommendation for conditional early release made by an Inspector for
Social Activity and Reforming Work?
12. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under
Article 17 of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she does
not fulfill his or her official duty to Article 15 para4 of the Regulations for
Application of the “ЗИН” when refusing or failing to provide his own legal and
factual motives for refusing to a person the procedure under Article 415 para1
item 3 CCP?
13. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under
Article 17 of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she
abuses his or her official status and ORDERS an Inspector for Social Activity
and Reforming Work to for reasons other than those established in law not
recommend for condition early release to the Commission a specific person?
14. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under
Article 17 of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when he or she
stretches his or her legal authority and competence by refusing to apply
conditional early release or the procedure under Article 415 para1 item 1 CCP
to those persons that according to his or her personal assessment the convicting
court has imposed to lenient a criminal sentence on the person?
15. Is the Chairman or other member of the prison Commission formed under
Article 17 of the “ЗИН” committing an actionable offence when under Article
15 para 4 of the Regulations for Application of the “ЗИН” he or she
intentionally obstructs a specific person from conditional early release by
issuing motives whose legal and factual content is intentionally misleadingly
due to vagueness, is inaccurate or even untrue?
16. First, Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia
Prison persistently have repeated insisted to the Petitioner and others that they
are subject to possible administrative or even criminal sanctions by the SCPO
should they observe only the exact wording of the law according to Article 70
para 1 CC and in the course of their duties according to Article 17a of the
“ЗИН” recommend for conditional early release to the prison Commission the
name or names of a person or persons under their supervision who have
formally satisfied all the requirements of Article 70 para CC but are unable [as
opposed to unwilling] to pay their dues to the State [or to physical persons].
17. Second, that according to numerous oral explanations given to the Petitioner by
representatives of the Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments - Central Sofia Prison it is the SCPO and SCaPO who have
established and are responsible for the policy and practice at the Central Sofia
Prison for conditional early release of a foreign person to be determined by he
or she having settled all financial obligations to Bulgaria.
19. Four, the Petitioner’s requests for the required information become all the more
poignant when the SCPO considers the legal fact that there is no published law,
normative act, ordinance, Interpretive Decision published and resulting from a
General Meeting of the Criminal College of the Supreme Cassation Court and
no published or written ORDER issued by the Minister for Justice or the
Prosecutors General for the RB wherein conditional early release and
“exemplary behavior” are conditional and respectively determined by a person
deprived of liberty having sufficient financial resources from his or her crime to
pay the separate and not cumulative [see Article 37 para1 CC] sanction of a
“fine” and court “costs”.
This therefore makes the SCPO and Ministry for Justice – Directorate for the
Execution of Punishments - Central Sofia Penitentiary policy and practice of
interpreting the payment of a “fine” and court “costs” as a demonstration of the
“reforming” and “rehabilitation” affects of a convict’s deprivation of liberty is
at first and foremost a legal absurd.
20. Five, that any such legal reasoning as that stated by inter alio -Prosecutor B.
Toshev in the said letter and relied on by the SCPO and Inspectors for Social
Activity and Reforming Work at the Central Sofia Penitentiary is a scientifically
discredited one and unsupported by any literature or practice in the science of
criminal rehabilitation.
21. Six, that Article 47 para2 CC makes the SCPO policy and practice as
announced by Director Peter Vassilev and as established by the SCPO and
making Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [the “ИСДВР”] at
the Central Sofia Penitentiary de facto public executors id est Inspectors for
Social Activity and Reforming Work and the prison Commission are to press
convicts personally to pay fines and courts costs in exchange for the application
of conditional early release and the legal procedure under Article 415 para1
CCP.
It appears this SCPO practice and policy is inconsistent with the CC and the
stated function of Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work [see
Regulations for application of the Law on the Execution of Punishments and the
Law for Execution of Punishments]. The text of Article 47 para2 CC clearly and
unambiguously states that fines and court costs are “collected from the
property” of the convict as secured by the court [see Article 156a CCP] and
according to Article 47 para3 CC cannot be collected from “chattels that cannot
be sold” by the State.
CONCLUSIONS
The requested information is within the competence and legal purview of the SCPO.
Alternatively, should the Prosecutor accept jurisdiction but refuses to provide the
requested information on the grounds that the Petitioner is not entitled to such
information for reasons of law, then the SCPO to identify the exact law excusing the
Prosecutor from providing the information and what information exactly the Prosecutor
cannot provide.
Finally, should the SCPO consider the questions as having the character of the
Petitioner requesting a legal opinion, the SCPO is respectfully reminded.
2. Of the fact that the Ministry for Justice Directorate for the Execution of
Punishments and all the Inspectors for Social Activity and Reforming Work and
Commission members at the Central Sofia Penitentiary have identified to the
Petitioner and to all foreign and other persons deprived of liberty and having
satisfied the formal requirements of Article 70 para1 CC, that it is at the
Prosecutors’ ORDER and policy and practice established by the SCPO that
conditional early release is not to applied by to this Petitioner and the other
persons affected;
3. Of the fact that the Petitioner is requesting information on a practice and policy
at the Central Sofia Penitentiary established by the Prosecutor and not published
as a part of any law, ordinance or Council of Minster’s Decree and therefore it
is only the SCPO who can clarify the issuing authority for the complained of
policy and practice;
4. Of the fact that without the requested information on the policy and practices
ORDER of the Prosecution to Central Sofia Penitentiary, the Petitioner cannot
establish the merit of the legal and factual grounds for his complaint, if any, and
the relevant procedure he should follow, civil, criminal or administrative;
6. Of the fact that as a person deprived of liberty the Petitioner cannot access
public data banks or other published resources from which to secure the
required public information on Prosecution ORDERS and PRACTICE
DIRECTIVES or on the ORDERS and PRACTICE DIRECTIVES of other
authorities affecting the legal right and obligations of the Petitioner. As a result
such information is available only directly through the alleged source of the
ORDERS and PRACTICE DIRECTIVES id est the Prosecutor.
Should the SCPO not agree with the reasoning of the Petitioner and still refuses to
provide the requested information, then the SCPO should identify the authority
responsible for providing information on the actions and acts of the Prosecutor if not
the Prosecutor.
Respectfully,
08.5.2005 г.
Michael Kapoustin
Attachment(s)
Copy of 18.03.2005 Original Motion as Filed to the Ministry for Justice Main
Directorate for the Execution of Punishments Mr. Peter Vassilev.
Чрез: Социалния началник
На 10-ти отряд
До: Деловодството на
Централен Софийски Затвор
МОЛБА
От: М. Капустин,
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода, 10 та група
С уважение,
Майкъл Капустин
Петък, 18.03.2005г.
ДО: ДИРЕКТОРА НА
ГЛАВНА ДИРЕКЦИЯ
ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА НАКАЗАНИЯТА
ПРИ МИНИСТЕРСТВО НА
ПРАВОСЪДИЕТО НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
Г-Н П. ВАСИЛЕВ
ТУК
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин,
канадски гражданин, лишен от свобода, 10 -
та група
Централен затвор, София
С уважение,
Майкъл Капустин
петък, 18 Март 2005 г.
ДО: ВЪРХОВНА КАСАЦИОННА ПРОКУРОР
НА РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
МОЛБА
Дата: 25.4.2005 г.
ГОСПОДИН ПРОКУРОР
С уважение, 25.4.2005 г.
Майкъл Капустин
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Mr. Stanimir Petrov
7 Varbitsa Street
4th Floor
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria
Дата: 01.04.2005 г.
I provide for your records the following Complaint filed with the Prosecutors General
for the Republic of Bulgaria and I do so notwithstanding the fact I have received no
reply to anyone of my letters to you.
Again please accept this letter as once more a formal request for the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee to come to the assistance of me and the other foreign nationals imprisoned
at the Sofia Central Penitentiary.
I also provide you with a copy of my cover letter to the President of the Republic of
Bulgaria. Patiently waiting for a reply I remain,
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
ДО: ПРЕЗИДЕНТА НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
БУЛ. "Дондуков" № 2
София, България
МОЛБА
Дата: 01.04.2005 г.
Господин Президент,
I submit a copy to you of the following Complaint to the Prosecutors General and
you’re your good offices do what they can to help me and the other foreign citizens
have our complaints heard and taken seriously.
Please accept my apologies for repeatedly turning to the Office of the President for this
Republic and his Vice President. However, you are both honorable men who appear
willing to listen and act silently to have the complaints of those less fortunate in society
at least investigated.
As for officials at the Ministry for Justice, particularly the Main Directorate for the
Execution of Punishments Sofia, their delays, ambiguous replies and inaction to
complaints only demonstrates a greater desire to defend the long standing status quo of
discrimination and official malfeasances as acceptable policy and practice at the Sofia
Prison. Little interest is demonstrated by official at Main Directorate for the Execution
of Punishments in seeing that Bulgarian national education, labor and human rights
legislation is applied equally and fairly to foreign and Bulgarian prisoners alike.
The Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments Sofia and senior officials at the
Sofia Prison have forgotten that prisoners are still human beings and in time future
members of society. Mr. President, the Sofia prison changes men but not in the way
that Bulgarian law or humanity intended.
Therefore, I request the assistance of the President in whatever way possible in helping
to secure a formal and unbiased investigation of my complaints and help to end
practices at the Sofia Prison that exist in open violation of Bulgarian national education,
labor and human rights legislation and international undertakings. I can only hope the
President and the Vice President take my complaints seriously,
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
До: Bulgarian Advocates for Human
Rights
Ул. Гурко 49А ет. 3
София, 1000
България
Канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода
Съдебен адрес
Централен софийски затвор
10-та група
София, България
Дата: 01.04.2005 г.
I provide for your records the following Complaint filed with the Prosecutors General
for the Republic of Bulgaria and I do so notwithstanding the fact I have received no
reply to anyone of my letters to you.
Again please accept this letter as once more a formal request for the Bulgarian
Advocates for Human Rights to come to the assistance of me and the other foreign
nationals imprisoned at the Sofia Central Penitentiary.
I also provide you with a copy of my cover letter to the President of the Republic of
Bulgaria. Patiently waiting for a reply I remain,
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
ДО: ГЛАВНИЯ ПРОКУРОР НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
For Canada
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ottawa, Canada
ЖАЛБА
От: Michael Kapoustin
Майкъл Капустин
Канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода
Съдебен адрес
Централен софийски затвор
10-та група
София, България
Дата: 28.3.2005 г.
ГОСПОДИН ФИЛЧЕВ,
I believe this oversight to be inconsistent with the legitimate objectives of their visit
and acted to deny me and other foreign inmates here in the 10th Group a chance to
present our grounded complaints of there being policies and practice at the Sofia prison
that are in direct violation of Article 15 of the Law on Execution of Punishments and
Article 70 section 1 of the CC when these laws are read with Article 15 section 2 and 4
of the “Regulations for Application of the Law on the Execution of Punishments” in
conjunction with the protections afforded us by Article 6 sect. 2 of the Constitution and
the national law according to Article 4 of the Law of Protection Against
Discrimination.
Furthermore according to Article 282 of the CC for a prison official to refuse his duty,
leges scriptae. to the written law is a serious offence and punishable by imprisonment
id est the law requires (prison) officials to provide in writing their legal or factual
motives for each occasion of denying to an inmate what is otherwise his certain legal
right or opportunity as provided for in legislated law (the CC) and is a right or
opportunity available to an inmate except in the most extraordinary of circumstances.
For an official to by inaction fail to observe his duty to the law or refuses to observe
that duty solely upon the “Unwritten Order” of a superior to not observe a particular
law is a criminal infraction of law and that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the
Prosecutors Office.
I respectfully remind the Prosecutors General of the following. That as much as it is the
duty of the Prosecutors Office to convict alleged felons, once having done so it is
equally the duty and a greater obligation to the law for the Prosecutors Office to protect
the rights of all convicts persons that are not restricted by virtue of their criminal
sentence or another legislative act. There are no legislative acts that make distinctions
according to nationality, property or social status in the application of national laws.
However, there are practices and policies at the Central Sofia Prison that do in writing
or by oral directive openly and with contempt and impunity for the legislated Bulgarian
national laws and with impunity for the Constitutional requirements of equality make
distinctions according to an inmate’s nationality and his or his family’s property or
public status.
The Prosecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria is obliged to investigate all such
complaints and were well ground to act immediately stop all such unlawful practices
and to punish those officials who are responsible.
Clearly these two fine prosecutors visiting the prison are in a position to make such an
investigation and determine if there are legal or factual grounds for a further enquiry
into any complaints.
С уважение,
Майкъл Капустин
София
Дата: 28.3.2005 г.
ДО: ГЛАВНИЯ ПРОКУРОР НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
За Канада
Министъра на външните работи
Отава, Канада
ЖАЛБА
От: Майкъл Капустин
Канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода
Съдебен адрес
Централен софийски затвор
10-та група
София, България
ГОСПОДИН ФИЛЧЕВ,
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
I have written several letters to your organization, the last was on January 24th
2005 to Ms. Mila Boyanva. The only response I have ever received from the
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee was on 07.12.2004 and since then there is only
silence. Considering my circumstances and that of the other foreign prisoners
here, your silence is more than a little distressing.
However, not withstanding the apparent indifference and for the sake of our
collective posterity I will continue to write.
First, to keep your organization appraised of any developments before the
courts. The Supreme Administrative Court has accepted 2 of 4 discrimination
complaints I filed (see attached Definition No. 820/27.01.2005 as attached). I
appealed the rejected parts (see attached Appeal from 16.2.1005).
Second and most important is the continued cry for help, for clearly as a foreign
lay person waging this battle alone, from within prison and without any legal
assistance from a Bulgarian profession is a something of a monumental task.
Is it doomed to failure? Possibly, but only if individuals like yourself and
organizations like the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee continue to stand on the
side watching without offering any help. There is merit to our complaints, and
those complaints have to be expanded to encompass discriminations denying
legal rights and obligations to Bulgarian and foreign convicts according to their
property and public (social) status.
I have documented this discriminatory policy and practice as applied by the
Sofia Prison Administration when determining a convict’s right of access to a
judicial proceeding under Article 70 sect. 1 of the Bulgarian CC.
I have also documented written interpretations on the subject of parole as issued
by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office, the Ministry for Justice – Main
Direction for the Administration of Punishments and as found in interpreting
decisions issued at General Meetings of Supreme Cassation Court Criminal
College. These interpretations clearly contradict the policies and practices of the
Ministry for Justice – Main Director for the Administration of Punishment as
published in a document that clearly states that the right of access to a parole
procedure is determined according to a convict’s property status.
I intend to bring before the Supreme Administrative Court and within the same
complaint these discriminatory polices and practices, if the court will allows it.
The complaints presented by me to the court are legitimate and I think well
thought out. They most certainly are not frivolous and the affected rights denied
to me and other like is done in violation of Bulgarian national law and its
international agreement. The question of law and fact to be determined by the
Court are serious as they will determine our right to access humane treatment
and Bulgarian laws designed to protect that humanity and the social integrity
and cohesion of the family..
Mr. Kanev, you and the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee can continue to act as if
we do not exist and to refuse us even the most modest assistance inter alia
under Article 21 of the Law for the Supreme Administrative Court the
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee may enter the case as Amicus Curiae or by
amicus brief. Or to write back and refuse us any help.
In the end though we are all judged not only by what we have done but also by
what we have refused to do. I am guilty of both sins. However, my present
actions are determined by my conscience and humanity, even if I am viewed
with enmity by some.
I sincerely hope that your conscience and humanity will permit you to help us,
notwithstanding any enmity you personally may have against me or any other
convict. But I will still keep writing you.
Sincerely,
Michael Kapoustin
cc:
Helsinki head offices
определение №820 Раgе 1 of З
ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ
№ 820
София,
01/27/2005
Върховният административен съд на Република България - Пето
отделение, в закрито заседание в състав:
ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ:МАРИНА
МИХАЙЛОВА ЧЛЕНОВЕ:ВАНЯ
АНЧЕВА
ЮЛИЯ КОВАЧЕВА
при секретар ис
участието
на прокурора изслуша
докладваното
от председателя МАРИНА МИХАЙЛОВА
по адм. дело № 7380/2004. й
ОПРЕДЕЛИ:
ОСТАВЯ БЕЗ РАЗГЛЕЖДАНЕ жалбата на Майкъл Капустин, гражданин на
Канада срещу разпореждане на СГС от 12.09.2003 година, определение на
Софийския апелативен съд по гр.д. №2191/2003 година, определение на Върховния
касационен съд по гр.д. №17/2004 година и определение на ВКС по гр.д. №68/2004
година и ПРЕКРАТЯВА производството по делото в тази част.
ЖАЛБАТА на Майкъл Капустин срещу Тарифа № 1 към Закона за държавните
такси да бъде докладвана на председателя на Втора колегия за разглеждането й от
петчленен състав на Върховния административен съд.
ИЗПРАЩА делото на председателя на Пето отделение в частта, с която се обжалва
заповед № ЛС-04-277 от 04.10.2002 г. на министъра на правосъдието, относно
разпределение на лишените от свобода по затвори, поправителни домове и
затворнически общежития, за насрочване и разглеждане в открито заседание.
ОСТАВЯ БЕЗ УВАЖЕНИЕ молбата на Майкъл Капустин от 21.01.2005 година,
подадена на основание чл. 72 от Закона за защита срещу дискриминацията.
МОЛБА
Уважаеми Съдии,
Също така мой обжалването е на основанията чл. 1§1 във в. чл. 2§1
и чл. 4 на закон за административното производство (“ЗЗАП”) и
според чл. 5 от съши заккон (“ззап”) НЕ ЗАДЪЛЖАВА ЖАЛБОПОДАТЛ ДА
ПЛАША Д.Т..
ЖАЛБА
НА ОСНОВАНИЕ
ЗАКОН ЗА ЗАЩИТА СРЕЩУ ДИСКРИМИНАЦИЯТА В СИЛА
ОСОБЕН ЧЛ.2§(1) И §(3) ОТ ЗЗЗСД
Уважаеми Съдии,
1
act of state - акт на държавната власт; Акт, често с използване на сила, извършен от представител на
суверенната власт с нейното предварително или последващо одобрение, който неблагоприятно засяга
лице, което не є е подвластно. Съдилищата са упълномощени да решават дали дадено поведение
представлява подобен акт, но ако актът е именно такъв, то той не е в тяхната юрисдикция и те не могат
да разглеждат спорове за обезщетяване на вреди от този акт
2
Art. 5 The Supreme Administrative Court shall consider; §1. claims and contestations against acts of the council
of Ministers, the prime minister, and deputy Prime Ministers, ministers, heads of other administrative bodies
directly subordinated to the Council Of Ministers, acts of the regional governors , as well others acts stipulated
by a law.
3
Art. 8 The proceedings before the supreme administrative court shall commence on claim of the interested
persons or on the contestation of the Chief Prosecutor or the deputy chief prosecutor at the Supreme
Administrative Court.
4
Art. 11. On the issues not settled by this law shall apply the Law for the administrative proceedings and the
Civil Procedural Code.
6
Art. 16§1 The claim or the contestation shall be presented through the body who has issued the appealed act.
7
Art. 15§2 The claim or contestation against an individual administrative act stops its fulfillment unless decrees
otherwise. When the administrative body has admitted preliminary fulfillment of the act the court at the request
of the interested party, can stop its fulfillment.
8
Art. 56§1: The Chairman of the District Court; p. 1: performs the general organizational and administrative
direction, is responsible for the activity of the court and represents it.
9
Art. 74§2 The Chairman and Vice-Chairman direct the departments.
10
Art. 15§(4) The one implementing the administrative service shall not be able to require from the applicant
proving of facts and circumstances important for performing the administrative service that are to be established
by the administration he belongs to. From the applicant cannot be required to prove negative facts. When it is
explicitly provided the certification of the fact to take place with a document its issuing can be required with the
application for performing the administrative service.
11
Art. 6§2: All citizens shall be equal before the law.
12
Art. 26§2: Foreigners residing in the Republic of Bulgaria shall be vested with all the rights and obligations
proceeding from this Constitution, except those rights and obligations for which Bulgarian citizenship is
required by this Constitution or another law.
13
Art. 56 Everyone shall have a legal right to defense whenever his legitimate interests are violated or
endangered.
14
Art. 57§1: Fundamental civil rights shall be irrevocable.
15
Art. 121§1: The courts shall insure the equality and mutual interchangeability of the parties to a judicial trial
16
Art. 117§1: The judicial branch of government shall safeguard the rights and legitimate interests of all citizens,
juridical persons and the state.
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин,
канадски гражданин
Централен затвор – София,
10-та група
Уважаеми Съдии,
За верността на превода:
Мариана Радулова
ЕГН 5710060450
В.л. № 434 по списъка на СГС за 2002г.
ДО: ВЪРХОВЕН
АДМИНИСТРАТИВЕН
СЪД, ПЕТО ОТДЕЛЕНИЕ
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин,
канадски гражданин
Централен затвор – София,
10-та група
Уважаеми Съдии,
За верността на превода:
Мариана Радулова
ЕГН 5710060450
В.л. № 434 по списъка на СГС за 2002г.
Чрез: социален началник
На 10-ти отряд
МОЛБА
От: М. Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен софийски затвор
10 та група
ДОПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ЖАЛБА
ОТ
08.01.2004г.
Уважаеми Съдии,
ДОПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ДОКАЗАТЕЛСТВО
и
РАЗШИРЯВАНЕ НА ЖАЛБА
ОТ 08.01.2004г.
ОСНОВАНИЕ ЗАКОН ЗА ЗАЩИТА СРЕЩУ
ДИСКРИМИНАЦИЯТА
Уважаеми Съдии,
I submit the following requests in the original English language with a Bulgarian
language translation as prepared by a recognized expert interpreter.
A. Additional Evidence
The Court is requested to accept into evidence the following true copies of original letters
issued by the Helsinki Committee of Bulgaria to the Plaintiff Kapoustin;
The Plaintiff Kapoustin and all other foreign Offenders serving their sentences in
Bulgarian prisons have a lesser legal status before officials of the Ministry of
Justice, Office of the Prosecutors General and the Sofia District Courts [civil,
criminal and administrative] than those Offenders who are citizens of Bulgaria
and serving their sentences in Bulgaria or other contracting member states to the
Council of Europe and Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
The letter confirms the discrimination alleged by the Plaintiff in his original
October 2004 Complaint to this Court as being fact and not the invention of the
Kapoustin.
2. The August 9th 2002 letter issued by the Helsinki Committee of Bulgaria in
response to a request by the Plaintiff Kapoustin for an independent investigation
of his allegation’s that there exists an official policy and practice of direct and
indirect discrimination. The Ministry of Justice – Main Directorate for the
Execution of Punishments, prison Officials and Sofia district prosecutors
determining the application of Bulgarian national laws and international treaties
according to the criteria of an Offender’s nationality and the property status of his
family. And doing so notwithstanding that the relevant and applicable national
laws determining rights and obligations id est the Criminal Code, Criminal Code
of Procedure, Civil Code of Procedure and the Law for the Execution of
Punishments have no provisions for a different application of their articles
according to the nationality or property status of a criminal Offender.
This letter confirms to the Plaintiff Kapoustin, and therefore also to this Court,
that there exists an earlier and independent investigation of the discriminations as
conducted by the Helsinki Committee id est direct discrimination according to the
criteria of nationality.
3. The Plaintiff Kapoustin requests the inclusion of an addition cause of action under
Supreme Administrative Case № 7380/2004.
Grounds for the new cause of action are to be found in Article 4 of the Law of
Protections against Discrimination id est the property status of foreign
Offenders and their families is relied on as an administrative criteria for the
determining of legal rights and social protection under Bulgarian national laws
and international agreements.
It is complained that the Ministry for Justice and Prosecutors General for the
Bulgarian have instituted an administrative policy and practice directly
discriminating against [foreign] Offender’s according to his and his family’s
property status [wealth].
The Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office for the Republic of Bulgarian inter
alio Prosecutor B. Toshev [„Б. Тошев”] writing on behalf of the Prosecutors
General confirmed in writing the existence of an official administrative policy
and practice for discrimination according to an Offender’s property status. In
letter to different Offenders, Bulgarian Prosecutor B. Toshev [„Б. Тошев”] wrote
that property status [wealth] of a [foreign] Offender’s [and his family] will
ultimately determine the legal right to a judicial review of parole or to
transfer under the European Convention in the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
C. Additional Facts
Proceeding from the above, the Plaintiff Kapoustin has alleged direct and indirect
discrimination the result of administrative orders, policies and practices of the
Ministry for Justice Republic of Bulgaria inter alia „Заповед № ЛС – 04 –
277/04.10.2002г. на Министъра на правосъдието” among others.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff Kapoustin has made an additional allegation of direct and
indirect discrimination the result of administrative orders, policies and practices of
the Minister for Justice Republic of Bulgaria and the Prosecutors General for the
Republic of Bulgaria. They having determined in their official capacity that nationally
and property status should determine an Offender’s access to legal rights and procedures
found in the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure and the Convention on the Transfer
of Sentenced Persons.
As a result, the Plaintiff Kapoustin submits the following statistical data and asks it
be accepted into evidence.
These statistics are significant to the Plaintiff Kapoustin and others proving the
complained of discriminations to be organized as official polices and practices of the
Ministry for Justice and Prosecutors General of the Republic of Bulgaria.
Proof of this systematic abuse of legal rights and social protections can be found in
the following statistics.
There are 93 sentenced foreign nationals at Sofia serving their punishments, of these;
Non-Bulgarian Offenders having been refused requests for transfer under the European
Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons solely according to the criteria of
their property status in Bulgaria.
Non-Bulgarian Offenders are refused judicial review of their legal status under the
procedures of Art. 415 and the following of the Criminal Code of Procedure solely
according to the criteria of their nationality and property status, and this not
withstanding the [Foreign] Offender having satisfied all the requirements of Article 70
sect. 1 of the Criminal Code.
D. Additional Request
That the Court Order the Ministry for Justice to confirm to the Court the
aforementioned statistical data as true.
That the Court request from the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee a true copy
of its September 2002 report.
Respectfully
30.12.2004 г.
Michael Kapoustin
ДОПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ДОКАЗАТЕЛСТВАТА
и
РАЗШИРЯВАНЕ НА ЖАЛБАТА
От 08.01.2004г.
ОСНОВАНИЕ ЗАКОН ЗА ЗАЩИТА СРЕЩУ
ДИСКРИМИНАЦИЯТА
УВАЖАЕМИ СЪДИИ,
А. Допълнителни доказателства
Съдът е замолен да приеме като доказателства следните верни копия от
оригинални писма, написани от Българския хелзинкски комитет до ищеца Капустин:
1
затвори при по-добри условия, на наемане на работа, образование, отпуска без
контрол, отпуска по медицински показания, пробация /от 01.01.2005г./,
освобождаване от държавни такси, за да се защитават или да завеждат
граждански дела и възможностите за трансфер /Конвенция за трансфер на
осъдени лица/ или условно предсрочно освобождаване.
Това писмо потвърждава пред ищеца Капустин, и следователно и пред този съд,
че съществува независимо проучване на дискриминацията, извършено по-рано
от Хелзинкския комитет, т.е. на пряката дискриминация според критерия
националност.
1
District Courts означава окръжни съдилища, но след консултация с г-н Капустин, той потвърди, че става
въпрос за СГС - бел. прев.
2
Записано „софийска окръжна прокуратура”, но потвърдено от г-н Капустин, че става въпрос за СГП -
бел. прев.
2
Прави се оплакване, че МП и ГП на България са установили административна
политика и практика, която пряко дискриминира правонарушителя (чужденец)
според неговия и на неговото семейство имуществен статус /богатство/.
ВКП на Република България, inter alio прокурор Б. Тошев, който пише от името
на ГП, потвърди писмено съществуването на официална административна
политика и практика на дискриминация според имуществения статус на
правонарушителя. В писмо до различни правонарушители българският прокурор
Б. Тошев написа, че имущественият статус /богатство/ на един правонарушител
/чужденец и на неговото семейство/ в крайна сметка ще определи законното
право за разглеждане от съд на условно предсрочно освобождаване или
трансфер съобразно Европейската конвенция за трансфер на осъдени лица.
3
Лат. - измежду други - бел. прев.
3
ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ № 7 от 27.06.1975г. на Пленума на ВС, Наказателно
отделение4 дава основания за твърденията на ищеца Капустин, че
административните решения на Комисията при ЦСЗ, Главна дирекция за
изпълнение на наказанията към МП, формирана по чл. 17 от ЗИН и на СГП да
отказват по чл. 70, НК на чужденците-правонарушители достъп до правните
процедури по чл. 415, НПК, противоречат на вътрешното право.
Правонарушителите, дори и онези, които не са граждани на България и чийто
имуществен статус не отговаря на изискванията на МП и на СГП, въпреки това
имат право на същите съдебни процедури, законни права и социална защита, от
които се ползват гражданите на България.
В. Допълнителни факти
Като се има пред вид горното, ищецът Капустин твърди, че е налице пряка и
непряка дискриминация, резултат от административни разпореждания, политика и
практика на МП на Република България, inter alia Заповед № ЛС-04-277/04.10.2002г.
на министъра на правосъдието измежду други.
Освен това, ищецът Капустин е направил допълнително твърдение за пряка и
непряка дискриминация, резултат от административин разпореждания, политика и
4
Относно обобщаване практиката на съдилищата по условното предсрочно освобождаване от
изтърпяване на наказание.
С цел да се подобри работата на съдилищата по условното предсрочно освобождаване от
изтърпяване на наказание, Пленумът на Върховния съд
ПОСТАНОВИ:
1. Обръща внимание на съдилищата да повишат активността си при решаването на въпроса за
условното предсрочно освобождаване, като изискват от ръководствата на затворите сведенията за
предлаганите за условно предсрочно освобождаване лица да съдържат изчерпателни данни относно
законните предпоставки:
a. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. Условното предсрочно освобождаване на изтърпяващ наказание лишаване от свобода е допустимо и
когато той не работи поради нетрудоспособност, щом като е изтърпял изискуемата част от
наказанието и е показал примерно поведение, независимо че изискването за честно отношение към
труда е дадено кумулативно с изискването за примерно поведение. Щом като осъденият поради
независещи от него причини не може да полага общественополезен труд и по този начин да покаже
своето честно отношение към труда, а с примерното си поведение е дал доказателства, че се е
поправил, може и следва да бъде условно предсрочно освободен.
5. При решаване въпроса за основанията за условно предсрочно освобождаване съдът не може да се
позовава на обстоятелствата по чл. 54 и 55, НК, както и на квалифициращите деянието признаци,
които се вземат пред вид при постановяването на присъдата. Чл. 70, НК изисква осъденият през
време изтърпяването на наказанието да е дал доказателства чрез примерно поведение и честно
отношение към труда, че се е поправил.
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...
10. ...
4
практика на министъра на правосъдието на Република България и на ГП на Република
България. Те са определили в своето официално качество, че националността и
имущественият статус следва да определят достъпа на един правонарушител до
законни права и процедури, съдържащи се в българския НПК и в Конвенцията за
трансфер на осъдени лица.
Тази дискриминация, за която твърди ищецът Капустин пред ВАС, засяга
законните права и социална защита на всички чуждестранни граждани, лишени от
свобода в Република България и излежаващи наказателни присъди тук, тя не засяга
само ищеца Капустин.
В резултат на това, ищецът Капустин представя следните статистически
данни и моли те да бъдат приети като доказателство.
Тази статистика е важна за ищеца Капустин и за други, тъй като доказва, че
дискриминацията, срещу която се прави оплакване, е организирана като официална
политика и практика на МП и на ГП на Република България.
Статистиката е необходима, за да се докаже, че дискриминацията, срещу която
се прави оплакване, системно се прилага от страна на Главна дирекция Изпълнение на
наказанията при МП и от СГП и за да се докаже наличието на незаконосъобразно
отнемане на законни права и социална защита от всички чужденци-правонарушители,
намиращи се в Централен софийски затвор.
Доказателства за това системно нарушаване на законните права и социална
защита могат да бъдат намерени в следната статистика.
В София има 93 осъдени чужденци, които излежават своите присъди, като от
тях:
5
На чужденците им се отказват молбите за трансфер по Европейската конвенция
за трансфер на осъдени лица единствено по критерия за техния имуществен статус в
България.
Г. Допълнително искане
Съдът да разпореди на МП да потвърди пред съда, че горната статистика е
вярна.
Съдът да поиска от Български хелзинкски комитет вярно копие от неговия
доклад за 2002 година.
Съдът да потвърди, че приема горното като доказателство.
Подадено с уважение
30.12.2004г.
Майкъл Капустин
За верността на превода:
Мариана Русева Радулова
В.л. № 1118 по Списъка на специалистите,
утвърдени за в.л. от Комисията по чл. 200ж
ал. 1 на ЗСВ, съдебен район на СРС – обн. в
ДВ бр. 17/2004г.
6
Превод от английски език
№ П-936/07.12.04.
Искрено Ваша,
(подпис не се чете)
Мила Боянова
БХК
Преводач:
Превод от английски език
09.08.2002г.
Искрено Ваш,
(подпис не се чете)
/Станимир Петров/
Кръгъл печат на Български хелзинкски комитет, София
Преводач:
1
В превод – Наблюдение за човешките права - бел. прев.
2
Същата дума означава и ответник при гражданско производство - бел. прев.
До: ВЪРХОВЕН АДМИНИСТРАТИВЕН
СЪД
ПЕТО ОТДЕЛЕНИЕ
ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ
№ 820 София,
01/27/2005
Върховният административен съд на Република България - Пето отделение,
в закрито заседание в състав:
ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ:МАРИНА МИХАЙЛОВА
ЧЛЕНОВЕ:ВАНЯ АНЧЕВА
ЮЛИЯ КОВАЧЕВА
при секретар и с участието
на прокурора изслуша
докладваното
от председателя МАРИНА МИХАЙЛОВА
по адм. дело № 7380/2004. й
ОПРЕДЕЛИ:
ОСТАВЯ БЕЗ РАЗГЛЕЖДАНЕ жалбата на Майкъл Капустин, гражданин на Канада
срещу разпореждане на СГС от 12.09.2003 година, определение на Софийския
апелативен съд по гр.д. №2191/2003 година, определение на Върховния касационен
съд по гр.д. №17/2004 година и определение на ВКС по гр.д. №68/2004 година и
ПРЕКРАТЯВА производството по делото в тази част.
ЖАЛБАТА на Майкъл Капустин срещу Тарифа № 1 към Закона за държавните такси
да бъде докладвана на председателя на Втора колегия за разглеждането й от
петчленен състав на Върховния административен съд.
ИЗПРАЩА делото на председателя на Пето отделение в частта, с която се обжалва
заповед № ЛС-04-277 от 04.10.2002 г. на министъра на правосъдието, относно
разпределение на лишените от свобода по затвори, поправителни домове и
затворнически общежития, за насрочване и разглеждане в открито заседание.
ОСТАВЯ БЕЗ УВАЖЕНИЕ молбата на Майкъл Капустин от 21.01.2005 година,
подадена на основание чл. 72 от Закона за защита срещу дискриминацията.
ЧАСТНА ЖАЛБА
Уважаеми Съдии,
A. Предварително изявление
B. Обжалвани части
(3) [“Цитираната правна норма (чл. 72§2 ЗЗСД) е относима към исковото
производство по реда на ГПК. За административното производство се
прилага разпоредбата на чл. 73 от Закона за защита срещу
дискриминацията…съгласно който "…равенство в третирането, може да го
обжалва пред съда по реда на ЗАП, съответно ЗВАС". В настоящото
производство такъв административен акт не е предмет на съдебен контрол,
поради което подалите молби лица нямат право на жалба.
Присъединяването към подадената от Майкъл Капустин жалба е
процесуално недопустимо, а подалите молби лица нямат качеството на
заинтересовани страни по делото. С оглед на това молбата следва да бъде
оставена без уважение.“] производството, започнато от Капустин срещу
Министерство на правосъдието, inter alia1 Заповед № ЛС-04-277/04.10.2002, е
1
Лат. – измежду други - бел. прев.
(3) Че, ако се приложи логиката на Пето отделение на ВАС, излиза че то (Пето
отделение на ВАС) трябва да разгледа поотделно, а не заедно исканията на
всеки от чужденците, подали 12-те отделни молби по това дело. Съдът ще
трябва да се произнесе с отделно ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ и по отделно да
уведоми всеки от 12-те молители, чиито молби да участват в адм д. №
7380/2004 са били отхвърлени като недопустими на следните процесуални
и фактически основания (1) погрешната процедура, на която са се позовали,
за да поискат допускане на тяхното участие и (2) че те не са заинтересовани
страни по административното дело, заведено от един от тях – Капустин.
2
Лат. – измежду тях - бел. прев.
3
Лат. – нещото говори само за себе си - бел. прев.
4
Лат. – на пръв поглед - бел. прев.
Този правен въпрос е фиктивен expressio unius est exclusio alterius5 тъй като
двата закона [Законът за защита срещу дискриминацията и ЗВАС]
разрешават процесуалния въпрос относно участието на трета страна по
еднакъв начин. А посочването или позоваването от страна на 12-те
молители и Капустин на единия закон [чл. 72, ал.2 от Закона за защита
срещу дискриминацията] и нейното изключване поради процесуална
недопустимост според уважаемите съдии Михайлова, Анчева и Ковачева
няма за правна последица лишаването на молителите от тяхното законно
процесуално право да участват на основание другия закон [чл. 21, ал. 2 от
ЗВАС].
5
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Правило за конструкция, според което да се изрази или
включи едно нещо предполага да се изключи другото
или алтернативното.
6
Текстът е взет без изменение от оригинала на жалбата - бел. прев.
7
Текстът е взет без изменение от оригинала на жалбата - бел. прев.
8
Би могло да се преведе и административен орган - бел. прев.
9
Би могло да се преведе и административен орган - бел. прев.
За верността на превода
Мариана Русева Радулова
в.л. № 1118 по списъка на специалистите,
утвърдени за вещи лица от Комисията по
чл. 200ж ал. 1, ЗСВ,обн. Д.В. бр. 17/2004г.
ЧАСТНА ЖАЛБА
Уважаеми Съдии,
I submit the following Private Appeal was originally submitted in the English
language on 16 February 2005 through the Sofia Prison. The present English text
has corrections and additions as submitted by me for Bulgarian language
translation by a recognized expert interpreter.
I now submit to the Court the final Bulgarian text with the corrected English
language document.
A. Preliminary Statement
As a foreign citizen deprived of his liberty, the Appellant is severely handicapped by the
judicial fact of his restricted ability to access his translator. It is therefore reasonable for
this Court to expect from the Appellant some deficiencies in his fully comprehending the
Bulgarian only text of the appealed Definition № 820 from 01.27.2005. As a result, the
Also, because of the shortness of time, the Appellant reserves his right to file an
addendum to this Appeal and thereby to complete his arguments.
B. Appealed Parts
The Appellant appeals those parts of Definition № 820 from 01.27.2005 where it is
determined by the Honorable Judges Mihailova, Ancheva and Kovacheva that;
(1) The Supreme Administrative Court finds it has no jurisdiction to review complaints
[“срещу разпореждания на съдии докладчици и определения по [граждански]
дела”] against rulings and definitions issued by the reporting judge in civil cases id est
that the administrative rulings and definitions by “Chairmen” appointed by the Minster
for Justice to administer the numerous departments of the Sofia City Court [“…са
постановени по реда на исковия процес, докато административният съд може
да се произнася само досежно законосъобразността на административните
актове. Предвид на изложеното, жалбата в тази част следва да бъде
оставена без разглеждане и производството по делото прекратено.”] are part of
the procedural order of a claims process and the Administrative Court only judicially
competent to redress the lawfulness of administrative acts and not the judicial acts of the
civil courts;
(2) The Supreme Administrative Court finds the [“подалите молби лица нямат
право на жалба. Присъединяването към подадената от Майкъл Капустин
жалба е процесуално недопустимо, а подалите молби лица нямат
качеството на заинтересовани страни по делото. С оглед на това молбата
следва да бъде оставена без уважение.”] 12 other foreign citizens deprived of
liberty in Bulgaria who submitted Motions requesting to be admitted as interested
parties to present proceedings under administrative case № 7380/2004 are not
interested third parties and their participation therefore is inadmissible, and
(3) The [“Цитираната правна норма (чл. 72§2 ЗЗСД) е относима към
исковото производство по реда на ГПК. За административното
производство се прилага разпоредбата на чл. 73 от Закона за защита срещу
дискриминацията…съгласно който "…равенство в третирането, може да го
обжалва пред съда по реда на ЗАП, съответно ЗВАС". В настоящето
производство такъв административен акт не е предмет на съдебен контрол,
поради което подалите молби лица нямат право на жалба.
Присъединяването към подадената от Майкъл Капустин жалба е
процесуално недопустимо, а подалите молби лица нямат качеството на
The appealed parts of Definition № 820/05 require the Appellant redress the following
questions;
(1) The apparent lack of clarity as to the nature of his complaints against
[“разпореждания на съдии докладчици и определения по [граждански]
дела”] the rulings and definitions issued by Chairman of the Sofia City Court as
considered by the law according to Article 63§1 item “b” of the CivCP; and
(2) The question of judicial economy, the legal status of 12 Petitioners and all other
foreign citizens deprived of liberty in Bulgaria as “interested parties” and their
procedural right to participate as interested third parties in an administrative case
where by the Decision of the Supreme Administrative Court their future rights
and obligations under law are to be affected. The present administrative case №
7380/2004 is filed by Kapoustin as a member of what is a “distinct social group
within Bulgaria society” id est “all foreign citizens deprived of their liberty and
incarcerated in Bulgaria by order of a Bulgarian criminal court” and whose
legal rights and obligation in Bulgaria are affected by what are alleged by
Kapoustin in his original complaint and by the 12 Petitioners to be administrative
acts, polices and practices of the Minister for Justice that by their wording and in
their intent and practice exist in contravention of basic Bulgarian law and are
negatively discriminating against all the members of this distinct social group;
and
(3) That by applying the same logic as that of the Supreme Administrative Court 5th
Section it would appear that each of the foreign citizens having filed the 12
individual Motions under this case should have had their individual requests
considered separately and not collectively by the Supreme Administrative Court
5th Section. The Court required to issue a separate DEFINITION and separate
notification to each of the 12 Petitioners who’s Motion to participate in admin.
Case № 7380/2004 has have been rejected as inadmissible on the procedural and
factual grounds that (1) the wrong procedure for allowing for their participation
(1) The question to be determined under the present proceedings is one of law.
Do the official administrative policies and practices of discrimination by Order
of the Ministry for Justice and as practiced by the Sofia Prison Administration
violate Bulgaria’s basic law and other human right legislation against all forms
of direct and indirect discrimination according to nationality, property or social
status of a particular group or individual?
The Supreme Administrative Court 5th Section therefore erred in law and
was also unreasonable when it concluded from the character of the Kapoustin
complaint and the facts that other the foreign citizens deprived of liberty in
Bulgaria are not discriminated against and do not therefore have the legal status
of “interested party” to the administrative complaint as filed by Kapoustin
against the Ministry for Justice.
This conclusion is wrong first because the other foreign citizens and 12
Petitioners under this case have also alleged the same discrimination against the
Minister for Justice and are complaining that the same official policies and
practices of direct and indirect discrimination are being unlawful and are
unlawfully derogating from the legal rights under Bulgarian law of all foreign
citizens deprived of liberty in Bulgaria.
The fact Res ipsa loquitur that the other 12 Petitioners under this case are
foreign citizens, are deprived of their liberty by a criminal court, are directly
suffering the complained of discriminations and are also the subject of Minister
for Justice Order № LC-04-277/04.10.2002 are facts that speak for themselves
and from which no other inference is reasonably possible except that the 12
Petitioners and all other foreign citizens deprived of liberty have sufficient prima
facie cause for the Supreme Administrative Court ex officio to find them to be
“parties of interest” who are suffering the same discrimination within the
Bulgarian prison system as is precipitated from among other things Ministry for
Justice Order № LC-04-277/04.10.2002.
As a result, the correct finding of the SAdmC 5th Section should be that all
incarcerated foreign citizens in Bulgaria as are alleged to be suffering
discrimination the result of among other things Ministry for Justice Order №
LC-04-277/04.10.2004 must be given the legal status of “persons are interested
in the outcome of the case, not indicated in the claim or contestation as
considered by Article 21§1of The Law for the Supreme Administrative Court.
(2) FURTHERMORE, the “bodies and the persons under para 1 [Article 21 of
the Law for the Supreme Administrative Court] can enter the proceedings
within 14 days from receipt of the notification”, therefore the Supreme
Administrative Court 5th Section had a duty to the law to allow the participation
in the present case of any foreign person deprived of liberty in Bulgaria. Such
persons are clearly to be affected by any Judgment and findings by the Supreme
Administrative Court issued under admin. case № 7380/2004 when it considers a
question of law inter alia are the discriminatory administrative policies and
There is no need for the Appellant to discuss the question if the 12 Petitioners
under this case being excluded from participating under Article 21§2 of the Law
for the Supreme Administrative Court solely on account of their including a
reference to Article 72§2 of the Law of Protections against Discrimination.
This legal question is moot expressio unius est exclusio alterius1 since both laws
[the Law of Protections against Discrimination and the Law for the Supreme
Administrative Court] settle the procedural issue of third party participation in
the same way. The expression or reliance by the 12 Petitioners and
Kapoustin on one law [Article 72§2 Law of Protections against
Discrimination] and its exclusion due to procedural inadmissibility according to
the Honorable Judges Mihailova, Ancheva and Kovacheva does not have the
legal affect of excluding the Petitioners from their legal procedural right of
participation under the other law [Article 21§2 of the Law for the Supreme
Administrative Court].
1
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: A cannon of construction holding that to express or include
one thing implies the exclusion of the other, or of the
alternative.
As a result, all foreign citizens belonging to the group affected by Minister for
Justice Order № LC-04-277/04.10.2002 and Article 15 of the Law for the
Execution of Punishments inter alio the 12 individual Petitioners who are 4
citizens of Romania (Румъния) Николае Мариа, Стънга Никушор, Кристиян
Добреску, Аникити Цезар Габриел; 1 citizen of Nigeria (Нигерия) Дандисон
Дуру; 1 citizen of Moldavia (Молдавия) Виорел Королевсски; 4 citizens of
Macedonia (Македония) Ветон Селя Исмайлхаки Исмаили, Джанер Мусич,
Идриз Куртиши; and 2 citizens of Poland (Полша ) Бартоломей Виежбицки,
and Виеслав Ниекало had and continue to have a right to petition the Supreme
Administrative Court 5th Section for participation in the admin Case №
7380/2004.
(3) The Supreme Administrative Court 5th Section has breached the law of
procedure when dealing with 12 individual Motions collectively through the
Original Complainant Kapoustin in one Definition and not individually. This
notwithstanding that each Petition has been filed separately by each of the 12
individual Petitioners representing himself before the Court and not through
Kapoustin. It is therefore respectfully submitted that it is a procedural
requirement that each Petitioner’s Motion be dealt with separately by the Court
and directly with each Petitioner and not through Kapoustin.
(5) The Supreme Administrative Court 5th Section has misunderstood the
grounds for the Appellant’s claim against the administrative polices and
practices of the Chairmen for the Sofia City Court Civil Departments.
What the Appellant’s original claim intended to seek was a trial and judgment or
Definition from the Supreme Administrative Court that would determine first a
question of law.
2
Art. 5. The Supreme Administrative Court shall consider:
1. (Suppl., SG 95/99) claims and contestations against acts of the Council of Ministers, the
Prime Minister, the deputy Prime Ministers, ministers, heads of other administrative bodies,
As a result of the above and the fact that these “acknowledgments” under Article
63§1 item “b” CivCP determine a purely administrative question id est should a
fee or state tax be paid are facts that cannot be ignored by this Court. And based
upon these facts it is reasonable for the Appellant to assert that the character of
the complained of “acknowledgments” are at best ambiguously defined and at
worst unreasonable and wrongly considered to be “judicial decisions” issued by
an “impartial” tribunal.
This is impossible for the reason that the procedure for issuing these
“acknowledgments” under Article 63§1 item “b” CivCP does not satisfy the
accepted judicial criteria for impartiality and equality at arms of the parties. The
Appellant asserts they are purely an administrative formality and one sided. It is
impossible for the Chairman of a Sofia City Court Department to represent the
budgetary interests of the Ministry for Justice and to issue “an impartial”
decision that will negatively affect either (a) the budget of the Ministry for
Finance or (2) the legal rights and obligations of a person deprived of liberty and
under the control of the same interested party.
The Appellant further requested that on determining the above question of law,
the Supreme Administrative Court to then turn its attention to a question of fact.
(1) That the Appellants arguments are reasonable and that the judicial facts of the
circumstances and status of incarcerated foreign citizens in Bulgaria are such as
lead to only one conclusion id est that all foreign citizens deprived of liberty in
Bulgaria are affected by the discrimination Complaint of Kapoustin against the
Minster for Justice inter alia Order № LC-04-277/04.10.2002 and Article 15 of
the Law on the Execution of Punishment;
(3) That as a result of the above facts, the nature of Kapoustin’s original
discrimination complaint against the Minster for Justice and its particular subject
matter as to a question of law affect the more than 100 persons in Bulgaria’s
prisons suffering the alleged discrimination. That their lives in Bulgaria are
directly affected by the discriminations is fact and must lead to a conclusion that
there are present the necessary conditions of Article 21 of the Law for the
Supreme Administrative Court. Therefore the Supreme Administrative Court 5th
Section had a duty both ex officio or on request to first identify all the foreign
citizens deprived of liberty in Bulgaria and affected by the alleged discrimination
and to respond separately and favorably to the 12 individual Petitioners foreign
citizens of Romania (Румъния) Николае Мариа, Стънга Никушор, Кристиян
Добреску, Аникити Цезар Габриел; 1 citizen of Nigeria (Нигерия) Дандисон
Дуру; 1 citizen of Moldavia (Молдавия) Виорел Королевсски; 4 citizens of
Macedonia (Македония) Ветон Селя Исмайлхаки Исмаили, Джанер Мусич,
Идриз Куртиши; and 2 citizens of Poland (Полша ) Бартоломей Виежбицки,
and Виеслав Ниекало affected by the discriminations alleged. The Court to
notify all and each of them to the existence of administrative case № 7380/2004
and the Court to allow them the their procedural right under law to participate in
the case as is settled by Article21§2 of the Law on the Administrative Court;
(4) And that proceeding from the above and according to the principles of
judicial economy and fairness the Supreme Administrative Court 5th Section
should be instructed to (1) to ex officio according to Article 21§1 of the Law for
the Administrative Court obtain from the Minister for Justice the identities of
each affected foreign citizen deprived of liberty and serving a criminal sentence
in Bulgaria and through the Minister for Justice notify each of them that they are
parties of interest in the discrimination complaint under admin. case №
7380/2004 against the Minister for Justice; (2) incorporate into the present case
and according to Article 21 of the Law for the Administrative Court all
“interested parties” id est those foreign citizens deprived of liberty and serving
criminal sentences in Bulgaria as persons not named in the originating complaint
of Kapoustin but whose individual legal rights and obligations under Bulgaria
law as incarcerated foreign citizens will ultimately be affected by the judicial
outcome under administrative case № 7380/2004 against the Minister for Justice;
(3) incorporate in the present case and according to Article 21§2 of the Law for
the Administrative Court the 12 individual Petitioners under this case inter alio
the 4 citizens of Romania (Румъния) Николае Мариа, Стънга Никушор,
Кристиян Добреску, Аникити Цезар Габриел; 1 citizen of Nigeria (Нигерия)
Дандисон Дуру; 1 citizen of Moldavia (Молдавия) Виорел Королевсски; 4
citizens of Macedonia (Македония) Ветон Селя Исмайлхаки Исмаили,
(5) The Supreme Administrative Court 5th Section should be instructed to Issue
a Definition or fix a trial to determine the legal character of the individual
“acknowledgments” issued ad hoc by individual judges appointed by the
Minister for Justice as administrative Chairmen of the Sofia City Courts
Civil Departments. The Definition or the trial to determine the Appellants
questions of law.
Are the “administrators” of the different Sofia City Courts Departments id est a
“Judge” by profession able to guarantee fairness when deciding to impose or not
to impose the fees under “ТАРИФА № 1 към Закона за държавните такси
ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ
№ 3149
София, 04/11/2005
Върховният административен съд на Република България - Петчленен
състав - II колегия, в закрито заседание в състав:
ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛ:СВЕТЛА ПЕТКОВА
ЧЛЕНОВЕ:ИВАН ТРЕНДАФИЛОВ
НАТАЛИЯ МАРЧЕВА
РУМЯНА ПАПАЗОВА
МИНА АТАНАСОВА
при секретар и с участието
на прокурора изслуша докладваното
от съдията РУМЯНА ПАПАЗОВА
по адм. дело № 2645/2005.
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
On January 24, 2005 I mailed the attached letter from the Sofia Central Penitentiary. Since
that time we have not heard from you. Would you please let me know if you received it and
when we can expect your response to the questions posed therein?
Sincerely,
Michael Kapoustin
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Ms. Mila Boyanova
7 Varbitsa Street
4th Floor
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
On December 23 2004 I wrote you and provided the information requested in your letter of
December 7th 2004. To this moment not I or any of the other foreign Offenders needing your
assistance have been contacted by you or other representatives of the Bulgaria Helsinki
Committee.
Will a Committee representative in Bulgaria be contacting us? And will the Committee
consider assisting us before a Bulgarian national court(s)?
I and the others at the Sofia Prison Foreign Offenders Group 10 would appreciate any
answer, negative or positive.
Furthermore, I again reconfirm earlier written requests for the assistance and possible
involvement of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee under Article 72 section 1 last hypothesis
of the Bulgarian Law of Protection from Discrimination.
Alternatively, if the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee is not interested in directly helping non-
Bulgarian prisoners with their human rights complaints, then would the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee consider writing a letter to the Supreme Administrative Court for the Republic of
Bulgaria 5-th Division the Honorable Marina Mihailova /Марина Михайлова,
Ekaterina Grincharova /Екатерина Грънчарова and Jeanette Petrova /Жанета
Петрова presiding and suggesting in its own words the positive affect of their
proceeding to a public hearing of the facts, evidence and arguments on how Bulgarian
laws and justice are administered and applied differently to those Offenders who are not
citizens of Bulgaria?
The court and case number is the Supreme Administrative Court for the Republic of
Bulgaria 5-th Division case № 7380/2004. However, the fact that the Supreme
Administrative Court for the Republic of Bulgaria has agreed to a preliminary examination
of official Government of Bulgaria policies and practices of discrimination is by no means an
assurance of their proceeding to hear the complaints or of a trial.
Therefore, I have written you again in the hope securing direct participation in judicial
proceedings of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, or in the least help towards securing a
public judicial hearing of our complaints. The requested letter from the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee would if nothing else give cause to the Supreme Administrative Court to at
least pause before denying 94 foreign Offenders their day in court.
I or another of the foreign citizens here will attempt to contact you by phone during the first
week of February.
Sincerely,
Michael Kapoustin
cc:
Helsinki head offices
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Ms. Mila Boyanova
7 Varbitsa Street
4th Floor
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
This is the first time any Bulgarian court has agreed to affect even the pre-
trial action of collecting evidence from the Minister for Justice.
I sincerely believe that the case will be helped and their a greater
possibility of a trial if the Helsinki Committee would file a motion with the
Court to appear as Amicus Curae for the Plaintiffs by sumitting its findings
on the discrimination in Bulgarian prisons against non-Bulgarian
Offenders.
When can I expect to hear from the Committee?
Michael Kapoustin
TOTAL 38
ДОПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА ЖАЛБА
ОТ
08.01.2004г.
Уважаеми Съдии,
Нормативен акта;
Обжалвания акт
Предмет на спора се намира във „многобройни актове” на
председателя на СГС ГК които доказват непряка
дискриминация срещу мен лично т.е юридически факт, че
във ПОВЕЧЕ ОТ 50 ГРАЖДАНСКИ ДЕЛА сред измежду
други (inter alios) Първи /1-и, Втори /2-и, Шести / 6-ти, и Десети
/10-ти състави на СГС ГК където Аз съм Ответник,
председателя на СГС ГК уважа молби по чл. 63 ал. 1 б „б”
ГПК когато са представени от Български гражданин - Ищец
и отказва същата молба когато е представена от чужд
гражданин лишен от свобода „Майкъл Капустин” Канадски
гражданин - Ответник.
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
Thank you for your letter of December 12th 2004. Can you please relay the
following to your Chairman Mr. Krassimir Kanev?
In advance I apologize for any typographical errors.
We are all grateful for the Helesinki Committer acknowleding the existance of
the complanted of discriminations.
Copies of your letter have been sent to the office of Canada’s Minister for
Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mr. Pierre Pettigrew M.P., to several members
of Canada’s Parliament and to each of the foreign ministries for Albania,
Poland, Macedonia, Romania and Turkey.
Recently Canada’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and members of Canada’s
parliament have taken a keen interest in my case as have the other cited foreign
ministries in the cases of their nationals. Representatives for each of the foreign
ministries have expressed to our families their frustration at the apparent refusal
of the present Bulgarian administration to observe the bona fides of Bulgaria’s
international agreements.
1
Minster for Justice inter alia “DECREE” № LC-04-277
2
Law for Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgarian
Mr. Kanev it is here that we believe the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee can
offer some practical assistance.
Our collective request and first preference would be for the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee to sponsor a human rights complaint or lawsuit before a Bulgarian
court of law and directly assist us with attorneys.
If this is not possible, then our second request and preference would be the
Bulgarian Helsinki to act as “monitor” of the human rights proceedings we
would initiate before a Bulgarian court. And, to provide us with some
human resources inter alia legal aid [human rights attorney] consultant to
review and make suggests on how to improve the our complaint and legal
reasoning.
Michael Kapoustin
From:
Michael Kapoustin
10th Prisoners Group
Citizen of Canada
Sofia Central Penitentiary
On August 9th, 2002 you wrote me at the request of Human Rights Watch USA.
In your letter you advised me that the complaints made by me and other non-
Bulgarian convicts against Minister for Justice “ORDER” LC-04-277 and
similar “ORDERS” would be analyzed by the Helsinki Committee in its
September 2002 Report.
I did not continue my dialogue with you and the Committee for several reasons.
First, I have completed my 9th year of prison in Bulgaria. In that time I have
seen many prisoners write your committee. Few, if any have received anything
concrete in the way of substantive assistance with their complaints of official
malfeasance or misfeasance in the interpretation and application of national and
international laws.
Second, I have not read the September 2002 Report. However, the Minister for
Justice Republic of Bulgaria probably has and is unconcerned with your
organizations findings. Such indifference towards violations of Bulgarian
national law and the work of the Helsinki Committee are made all the more
obvious by the fact that “ORDER” LC-O4-277 was amended and reissued on
04.10.2002. The September 2002 Report apparently having no effect.
The negative discrimination complained of by me to Human Rights Watch
continues to be practiced by officials in each of the different Directorates of the
Ministry for Justice. The nationality and economic status of a convict continues
to determining how articles of Bulgarian national laws are to be applied or if
they are to be applied at all to non-Bulgarians.
Therefore, I seriously doubted that much could be accomplished by writing
your Committee. My reasoning derived from the fact that the discrimination
МОЛБА
От: МАЙКЪЛ КАПУСТИН
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен софийски затвор
10 та група
Отн.: 94-M-147/00
Отн.: 94-M-147/00
Отн.: 94-M-147/00
За яснота Аз ще напиша това на Английския език, и след това част в моя слаб
Български/ For clarity I will write this in the English language.
First I wish to express my sincere personal regret at the recent murder of Bulgarian
citizens in Iraq.
Minister Stankov, I am Canadian and proud of it. But I spent much of my adolescence
and adult life in the United States and served the U.S. government for several years in
among other things its reserve army officers program. I have particularly strong ties to
the U.S., and admired Bulgaria’s government for its commitment to the U.S. principles
for having entered Iraq. Many in Bulgaria and the world disagreed with this decision.
However, those who disagreed probably never suffered directly from tyranny and
repression. So they fail to understand how many times repressed peoples have cried out
for salvation from tyranny only to be ignored for the sake of diplomacy. How many
millions in recent history have died as a result?
My politics and personal grievances aside, I sincerely grieve at the recent losses in Iraq
for Bulgaria. I share the pain of all the Bulgarian families whose loved ones have
fallen. Such feelings in me are a part of our shared human values and must always
transcend any legal or property disputes or controversies I may have with the State of
Bulgaria. I am truly sorry at these losses of Bulgarian lives in Iraq and at the continuing
problems for Bulgaria’s medics in Libya. These events represent a lot of pain, and it
seems too much to bear in to short a time for so small a nation.
Before proceeding any further I also wish to thank the Honorable Minister of Justice for
any role the Minister may have had in securing the July 9th 2004 move of the 10th
Foreign Prisoners Group to a cleaner remodeled section of the Sofia Central
Penitentiary.
While there are complaints of overcrowding (96 non Bulgarian prisoners in an area
previously housing 46 Bulgarian nationals), most of the prisoners are sincerely grateful
for now having access to hot and cold running water, showers and toilets in their cells.
Many of us have not seen such things in years, me personally not for more than 8 years.
Regrettably I do not have a toilet or shower in my cell. The limited space of this new
section required me to take a smaller cell designated non-smoking but without such
pleasant conveniences. However, the cell is cleaner and atmosphere far better than what
I have suffered for most of the last 8 years.
However, this letter is provoked by a deep concern that I share with the other prisoners
over rumors of a plan to indirectly punish all of the non-Bulgaria nationals at the Sofia
Central Penitentiary by again moving us! This time to the run down and depressing
atmosphere of the prison at Kremikovzi.
We all know such a plan is being considered and we are praying that it will not occur.
That instead either (1) the current improvements in our living conditions at the Sofia
Central Penitentiary will continue to approach those of European standards, or (2) and
better yet that those of use who have less than 5 years remaining of their sentence are
removed to prisons of the Open and Intermediate types where there is work waiting for
them and the overcrowding at the Sofia Central Penitentiary is directly reduced from 96
to 47 as a result.
The Minister can understand that none of us wants to again return to the dehumanizing
conditions we have endured before the July 9th 2004 move.
Therefore, the subject matter of this letter must be a request for the Minister to accept
the enclosed complaint and to hopefully stop any possible plan by the Ministry of
Justice Republic of Bulgaria – Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments
to move me or the other non-Bulgarian citizens to Kremikovzi and so once more
make our living conditions worse instead of better.
The enclosed Complaint also petitions the Minister to have officials answerable to him
complete the tasks assigned by Deputy Minister of Justice the Honorable M. Dimitrov
in his letter of June 8th 2004 to the Sofia Central Penitentiary.
The Honorable Minister should know that each time I or other non-Bulgarian nationals
complain of discrimination at the Sofia Central Penitentiary we are told by prison
administrators that this discrimination is by “Decree and Order of the Minister of
Justice, and you do not to have such rights because you are not Bulgarian citizens or
residents of Bulgaria”, unquote.
Such Complaints would be moot were it not for the fact that the Main Public
Prosecutors Office of Republic of Bulgaria is finding reason to so far deny all
applications made for transfer under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced
Persons.
Such Complaints would also be moot were it not for the fact that the Sofia District
Prosecutors Office and the Head of the Sofia Central Penitentiary Commission under
Art. 17 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments is finding subjective reasons to so
far deny all applications for parole of non-Bulgarian citizens having completed half of
their sentences according to Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code. It concluded by
the Sofia District Prosecutors Office and the Head of the Sofia Central Penitentiary
Commission that meaning and principles of Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code
are to be reinterpreted and criminal sentences indirectly revised up.
My COMPLAINT is justified and made necessary by the fact that according to the
present interpretation given by Supreme Prosecutors Office of the Republic of Bulgaria
and the Main Public Prosecutor Filchev on the question of transfer i.e. the Convention
on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and parole i.e. Article 70 of the Criminal Code
citizens of Canada and member states of the Council of Europe inter alio Poland,
Romania, Turkey and Albania are not eligible for released on parole or for transfer to
prisons in their own country. We are to be made to live here the full course of our
sentences, it is therefore necessary we assert all of our rights and demand officials
observe the letter and intent of Bulgarian national law.
The foregoing is supported by the written ORDERS of the Supreme Prosecutors Office
of the Republic of Bulgaria whose prosecutors refuse all requests made by Polish,
Turkish, Romanian, and Albania or other non-Bulgarian citizens for transfers to
prisons in their countries.
NO ONE OF THE 96 SENTENCED FOREIGN CITIZEN INCARCERATED IN
BULGARIA HAS SO FAR BEEN ALLOWED TO TRANSFER EVEN THOUGH
MORE THAN HALF HAVE REQUESTED TRANSFER. The reasoning given by
the Supreme Prosecutors Office Republic of Bulgaria are post hoc ergo propter hoc1
legally flawed and questionable petitio principio2 in the interpretation of the
Convention. Prosecutors write and I paraphrase here “that the Convention on the
Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Strasbourg 1983 has not provided a provision or
practice for the transfer of the penalty “fine” together with the penalty “deprived of
liberty” and so the transfer procedure cannot be started and your request for transfer
must be refused”.
Such a legal interpretation appears flawed and inconsistent with the Convention’s
wording and intent.
It is also factually flawed since neither of Council of Europe member states Turkey,
Albania, Poland, Romania or others have officially refused a Bulgarian requirement for
the “penalty fine” to be included as part of any conversion of the Bulgarian criminal
sentence.
The Sofia District Prosecutors Office and the Commission formed according to Article
17 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments are now exercising what is a “quasi-
judicial” function of “sentence revision” and are now abstractly reviewing judicial
1
logical flaw, flaw in the argument and begging questioning,
2
circular reasoning
3
logical flaw, flaw in the argument and begging questioning,
4
circular reasoning
decisions made by criminal courts and then subjectively determining, according to no
legal logic or guidance, if the sentence imposed by the Criminal Court was sufficiently
harsh. If not then the convict is to be required to serve an undermined additional time
beyond half of his completed sentence, thereby making the legislative intent of Article
70 CC and the word “half” meaningless.
It appears that the personal opinion of the Commission Head and its members and the
unscientific quasi-judicial role of the Sofia District Prosecutor are to prevails over the
legislative intent and logic of Article 70 of the Bulgarian CC.
Neither the Prosecutor nor head of the Sofia Central Penitentiary Commission have
legal jurisdiction or judicial competence to make such a review of a criminal sentence
already in force. The district prosecutors and the Head of the Commission under Article
17 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments have in issuing such decisions made
meaningless and pointless the legislative intent and wording of Article 70 CC. They
have taken upon themselves a jurisdiction authority outside of that permitted to them
and one that according to Article 117 of the Bulgarian Constitution and the Criminal
Code of Procedure is only within the competence of the judiciary. Courts determine
sentences and once those sentences are in force they are not subject to change or
revision by the District Prosecutor or the Director of the Sofia Central Penitentiary. It
only the Supreme Cassation Court of the Republic of Bulgaria that is legally competent
to make such alternations or revisions to an in force criminal decision.
The cited practices and circumstances as I have identified here are in direct breach of
Bulgaria’s national laws, the Law of Protection from Discrimination, the Criminal
Code and the Law on the Executions of Punishments. I therefore expect the Minister
of Justice will act immediately on these Complaints.
My family and I, and we are sure the Government of Canada deeply appreciates the
recent interventions of the Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria in answer to our
complaints.
Regrettably, it still does not appear to be enough, and once again I am forced to turn to
the Minister of Justice Republic of Bulgaria to correct the errors and omissions of his
officials and to set in motion procedural steps that will cause matters to take their
lawful and humane course.
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
Sofia Penitentiary
Group 10
TO: Република България/Republic of Bulgaria
Министерство на правосъдието/Ministry of
Justice
Канцеларията на министъра/Office of the
Minister
"Славянска" № 1/Slavianski St. No. 1
София, 1000/Sofia 1000
България/Bulgaria
AND
ЖАЛБА/COMPLAINT
ЧЛ. 19 АЛ. 1 ОТ ЗАКОН ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ НА НАКАЗАНИЯТА/ARTICLE 19 s.51 OF
THE LAW ON THE EXECUTION OF PUNISHMENTS
THE COMPLAINT
5
Art. 19. (amend. SG 84/77, SG 28/82, SG 21/90) (1) (amend. SG 73/98) The general management of the places for
deprived from liberty and the control over their activity shall be implemented by the Ministry of Justice
2. Against the failure of the Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria –
Directorate for the Execution of Punishments for not undertaking the
necessary steps to comply with the June 8th 2004 letter of Deputy Minister
Mario Dimitrov who wrote at paragraph 4 that “На основание чл. 36, ал. 2
от ЗИН…литературни произведения да се зачита за работни дни. В
тази връзка следва да определите началото на творческата дейност,
както и да следите за нейното приключване”. The Office of the Minister
of Justice requested to intervene and learn why no official at the Sofia
Central Penitentiary has undertaken the quoted above task, afterwards to
then direct that it be done. Each day of delay is for me a lost day, and even
though I work each day that day is not being applied towards the reduction
of my sentence.;
The Minister of Justice requested to then immediately act to end that direct
and indirect discrimination at the Sofia Central Penitentiary and other
Bulgarian prisons.
The Sofia Central Penitentiary and other prisons ORDERED to secure for
me and other non-Bulgarian inmates at the Sofia Central Penitentiary our
right to equal opportunity under Bulgarian law.
6
Article 3
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law
and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the
aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.
At the present time my Canadian nationality and the non-Bulgarian
nationality of the other inmates at the Sofia Central Penitentiary is the sole
reason for me being denying such rights.
The Minister of Justice Republic of Bulgaria must therefore end all such
ORDERS and secure for me and other non-Bulgarian nationals our equal
rights under Bulgaria law and according to the exact wording of that
Bulgarian law. The Minister of Justice Republic of Bulgaria can never allow
that a citizen of Canada in Bulgaria has “fewer” rights than what the law
actually allows.
However, that is exactly the case and ergo the Ministry of Justice Republic
of Bulgaria – Directorate for the Execution of Punishments is in breach of
national law and the international agreements of Bulgaria when it sets a
RULE and PRACTICE TO DENY to deny to non-Bulgarian nationals
inter alia their legal right to probationary release, housing at a prison hostels
of the “open” or “intermediate” type and regular work.
4. Against the possibility that ALL non-Bulgarian prison inmates are once
again to be uprooted and moved, this time transferred to a prison hostel of
the “Closed” type „ТПО” at Kremikovzi Penitentiary some 30 kilometers
outside of the capital city Sofia. Such a move resulting in a worsening of the
living conditions of the non-Bulgarian nationals at the Sofia Central
Penitentiary.
If the anecdotal evidence of this move proves inaccurate, then the Petitioner
apologizes in advance, however I believe it to be accurate. I and surely the
other non-Bulgarian nationals would welcome any move that improved our
living environment. Clearly no one of us would welcome a move that only
worsens it.
The obvious and immediate affect of such a move would be to distress those
men affected by it. The move appears more an attempt by some official to
silence or mute “those” complaining Canadian and European citizens by
hiding them as far away as possible from the prying eyes of their consulates,
embassies and families.
To be locked in one room for years, never allowed to leave that room
to engage in work, education or recreational activity is inhuman. But
this is the fate of all non-Bulgarians serving their sentences in
Bulgaria. The Minister of Justice Republic of Bulgaria having issued
Ordinances that deny to a non-Bulgarian his access to same those
programs available to Bulgarian nationals within the Bulgarian
prison system.
The new foreign owners of steel plant have not kept their promise to
the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to cleanup the local
environment and to end the years of environmental pollution.
On May 18th 2004, I complained to the Minister of Justice of being refused the
opportunity and the needed facilities to work for the Wilson Company of the United
States. I also complained about the poor living conditions and refusal of the Sofia
Central Penitentiary to repair and maintain the 10th Foreign Prisoners Group. I
requested the Minister’s intervention. I also advised the Government of Canada,
Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.
On May 21st 2004, I delivered to the Honorable President of the Republic of Bulgaria
an “OPEN LETTER” from foreign citizens serving their sentences as inmates at the
Sofia Central Penitentiary. The letter is addressed to the people of Libya and begs for
clemency towards Bulgaria’s medics who are on trial there. This letter was signed by
44 of the then 72 foreign citizens who like Bulgaria’s medics are also prisoners in a
foreign country. I also lodged my complaints concerning the poor living conditions and
the direct and indirect discrimination and inequality of the treatment unfairly suffered
by all non-Bulgarians in the negatively prejudiced application of the Bulgarian law for
the Execution of Punishments and Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code. The
direct discrimination solely the result of Minister of Justice Republic of Bulgaria
ordinances that date from 1992 and deny to all foreign citizens imprisoned in Bulgaria
certain legal rights that are otherwise theirs according to Bulgarian law. This
discrimination is solely due the fact that these prisoners are not Bulgarian citizens or
residents.
On June 2nd 2004, I delivered all of the above to the First Secretary (Political) Embassy
of Canada, Bucharest, Romania, Mr. Paul Roche. I requested that the Canadian
government enquiry into the subject matter of negative discrimination in the unfair
application of Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code and in denying certain of my
rights under articles if the Bulgarian Law on the Execution of Punishments.
On June 8th 2004 I received a copy of the letter written by Deputy Minister Mr. Mario
Dimitrov, Ministry of Justice to the Administration of the Sofia Central Penitentiary.
The subject matter of the letter was my eligibility for parole starting after August 8th
2004, my right to work credits for creative activities in literature and art and my right to
a no smoking cell. The Administration of the Sofia Central Penitentiary was to
undertaken these certain measures including making the necessary repairs to the 10th
Foreign Citizen Prisoner’s Group at the Sofia Central Penitentiary.
On June 19th 2004 I received a copy of a May 24th 2004 letter written by the Bulgarian
Embassy in Ottawa Canada and prepared by the Charges d’Affaires Mr. Ivan Dantchev.
The Embassy’s letter was addressed to the Honorable Dr. Keith Martin a Member of
the Parliament Canada. Dr. Martin and other elected Canadian officials are enquiring
into the question of equal application of Bulgarian law and the ill-treatment of me as a
citizen of Canada incarcerated in Bulgaria. The Government of Republic of Bulgaria
Main Public Prosecutor having refused my transfer to a prison in Canada has as a result
raised concerns in Canada over the circumstances of my continued imprisonment in a
Bulgarian prison.
On June 22nd 2004, and in response to the May 24th 2004 letter of the Bulgarian
Embassy in Canada, I filed a Petition to Republic of Bulgaria Ministry of Justice
Directorate for Public Relations and Protocol Slavianski St. No. 1 Sofia 1000
Bulgaria.
On June 22nd 2004 I Complained to the Minister of Justice and reported to him that no
actions had been undertaken by the Sofia Central Penitentiary on the subject matters
identified in the June 8th 2004 letter of the Honorable Deputy Minister of Justice Mr.
Mario Dimitrov.
The Petition and Complaint were filed from the Sofia Central Penitentiary according to
Article 37 of the Bulgarian Law on the Execution of Punishments.
Copies of June 22nd 2004 Petition and Complaints are attached here.
On June 24th 2004, in a separate letter, I reported to the Minister that some effort was
made to repair the roof of the 10th Foreign Prisoners Group at the Sofia Central
Penitentiary. I also provided copies of letters were I thanked the Sofia Central
Penitentiary for its effort and advised that I recognized the problems identified by me to
be systemic and not isolated.
On July 9th 2004 the 96 men of the whole of the 10th Prisoners Group were moved to a
remodeled section of the Sofia Central Penitentiary that previously housed only 45
Bulgarian citizens.
All the Bulgarian prisoners moved are employees of the Ministry of Justice – Main
Directorate for the Execution of Punishments and receive credit toward the
reduction of their sentence, additional food, unescorted weekend leaves and
monthly remuneration. Many who receive these benefits do not yet have final
sentences and so take away work from those who must remain in prison.
All the cells of the new section, except 1, have toilets and showers. The new housing is
a significant improvement.
However, where there were 45 Bulgarian nationals now there are now 96 non-
Bulgarian nationals, the Sofia Central Penitentiary Administration apparently prepared
to place as many as 120 or more non-Bulgarian nationals into this same space. THAT
IS THREE TIMES AS MANY AS WHEN THE FACILITY HOUSED
BULGARIAN NATIONALS, PRISONERS REGULARLY EMPLOYED AND
PAID BY THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA - MAIN
DIRECTORATE FOR THE EXECUTION OF PUNISHMENTS, WHY?
Minister Stankov, the situation in your prisons for non-Bulgarian nationals is dismal.
There is no organization or remedial activity. Citizens of Canada and Council of
Europe member states are locked into one section of the Sofia Central Penitentiary and
are forgot for 22 hrs and 30 minutes a day for the 5 to 18 years they are required to
spend in those sections. That is until they become seriously ill, die or are finally
released as something less than what they were when arrested in Bulgaria.
Does the Honorable and learned Minister of Justice for the Republic of Bulgaria in
good conscience really consider the conditions of isolation as faced by non-Bulgarian
nationals at the Sofia Central Penitentiary and the discrimination we endure as being
ethically and morally justified and tolerable in Bulgaria’s efforts of realizing a
European democracy equal to that of England or Germany?
What follows here are copies of my unanswered Petitions and Complaints. I can only
pray for answers as well as solutions,
Понделник, 19.07.2004г.
ЖАЛБА
Чл. 19, ал. 1 от ЗИН
ЖАЛБАТА
1
и да разбере, защо нито едно длъжностно лице в Централен затвор, София
не се заема с посочената по-горе задача, след това да разпореди
изпълнението й. Всеки ден забавяне е загубен за мен и въпреки че работя
всеки ден, този ден не се зачита за приспадане от присъдата ми.
1
Чл. 3 Всеки член на Съвета на Европа трябва да приеме принципите на управление чрез закона и
ползването от страна на всички лица, намиращи се под неговата юрисдикция, от човешките права и
основните свободи, както и искрено и ефективно да съдейства за реализирането на целта на Съвета,
посочена в Глава І.
2
които им принадлежат съобразно вътрешното законодателство. Централен
софийски затвор и Главна дирекция за изпълнение на наказанията при
Министерство на правосъдието на Република България могат да отказват
законосъобразно единствено онези права, които са ограничени по силата на
наказателна присъда.
3
Моите законни права като канадски гражданин са засегнати от тази и другя
дискриминация. Не само поради факта, че inter alia ми остават по-малко от
пет години за излежаване на присъдата ми, това не е така.
4
преместване, което би подобрило условията ни за живот. Очевидно е, че
никой от нас няма да приветства преместване, което ги влошава.
5
затворници-чужденци, които излежават присъдите си в България.
Министърът на правосъдието на България е издал наредби, които
отказват на всички затворници-чужденци достъп до същите онези
програми, които са на разположение на българските затворници в
рамките на системата на местата за лишаване от свобода в България.
Това е истина, понеже министърът на правосъдието е забранил на
чужденците да работят извън Кремиковския затвор или който и да е
друг български затвор. Това е ограничение, което министърът на
правосъдието не е наложил на българските затворници, които
излежават присъдите си там, т.е. те могат да работят в
стоманодобивен завод, в частни компании извън територията на
затвора, могат да посещават училище и т.н.
6
d. Публично известно е, а също и на министъра на правосъдието на
Република България, че затворът в Кремиковци не е удобен за
длъжностни лица от консулствата и посолствата, намиращи се в
София.
7
На 21.05.2004г. изпратих на уважаемия президент на Република България
„ОТВОРЕНО ПИСМО” от чужденците, излежаващи присъдите си като
затворници в ЦСЗ. Писмото е адресирано до народа на Либия и моли за
милосърдие кам българските медици, срещу които има процес там. Това писмо
беше подписано от 44 от всичките 72 чужденци, които подобно на българските
медици също са затворници в чужда страна. Също така аз изразих своите
оплаквания от лошите условия за живот и от пряката и непряка дискриминация и
неравнопоставеното отношение, от което страдат всички чужденци при негативно
предубеденото прилагане на ЗИН и на чл. 70 от българския НК. Пряката
дискриминация е единствено резултат от наредбите на министъра на правосъдието
на България, които датират от 1992г. и отказват на всички чужденци, лишени от
свобода в България определени законни права, които по принцип им принадлежат
съобразно българското законодателство. Тази дисриминация се дължи единствено
на факта, че тези затворници не са български граждани или жители.
На 02.06.2004г. изпратих всичко това на първия секретар (политически) на
Посолството на Канада в Букурещ, Румъния – г-н Пол Рош. Помолих канадското
правителство да направи запитване относно въпроса за неготивната
дискриминация при несправедливото прилагане на чл. 70 от българския НК и
отказването на някои от моите права по българския ЗИН.
На 08.06.2004г. получих копие от писмото, написано от заместник-
министъра г-н Марио Димитров до администрацията на ЦСЗ. Предмет на писмото
беше моята пригодност за условно предсрочно освобождаване след 08.08.2004г.,
моето право да работя творчески труд в областта на литературата и изкуството и
правото ми на килия, в която да не се пуши. Администрацията на ЦСЗ трябваше да
предприеме тези конкретни мерки, включително и извършването на необходимия
ремонт на помещенията на 10-та група – чужденци.
На 19.06.2004г. получих копие от писмо от 24.05.2004г., написано от
българското посолство в Отава, Канада и изготвено от шарже д’афер г-н Иван
Данчев. Писмото на посолството беше адресирано до уважаемия д-р Кийт Мартин,
член на парламента на Канада. Д-р Мартин и други лица на изборна длъжност в
Канада проучват въпроса за еднаквото прилагане на българския закон и за лошото
отношение към мен като гражданин на Канада, лишен от свобода в България. След
като правителството на България в лицето на главния прокурор отказа моя
трансфер в затвор в Канада породи тервога в Канада относно обстоятелствата,
свързани с моето продължително лишаване от свобода в блгарски затвор.
На 22.06.2004г. в отговор на писмото на българското посолство в Канада от
24.05.2004г. подадох молба до дирекция Връзки с обществеността и протокол
на МП, на ул. „Славянска” № 1, София 1000, България.
На 22.06.2004г. се оплаках пед министъра на правосъдието и му докладвах,
че не се предприемат действия от страна на ЦСЗ по въпросите, посочени в писмото
на уважаемия заместник-министър г-н Марио Димитров от 08.06.2004г.
Молбата и оплакването бяха изпратео чрез ЦСЗ съобразно чл. 37 от
българския ЗИН.
Към настоящото са приложени копия от молбата и оплакванията от
22.06.2004г.
8
На 24.06.2004г. в отделно писмо докладвах на минстъра, че са положени
някои усилия да се ремонтира покрива на помещенията на 10-та група – чужденци.
Също така изпратих копия от писмата, с които съм благодарил на ЦСЗ за усилията,
които се полагат и ги уведомих, че признавам, че проблемите, посочени от мен са
системни, а не изолирани.
9
Министър Станков, положението на чужденците във вашите затвори е
печално. Няма организация, нито поправителна дейност. Гражданите на Канада и
на държави-членки на Съвета на Европа са заключени в един сектор на ЦСЗ и са
забравени в продължение на 22 ч. и 30 мин. На ден в продължение на 5 до 18
години, които им се налага да прекарат в тези сектори. Това се прави докато те
сериозно се разболеят, умрат или най-после бъдат освободени, но вече не са това,
което са били, когато са ги арестували в България.
Може ли уважаемият и високо образован министър на правосъдието на
Република България с чиста съвест наистина да смята условията на изолация, с
които се сблъскват чужденците в ЦСЗ и дискриминацията, която ние трябва да
понасяме за оправдани от етична и морална гледна точка и може ли те да бъдат
толерирани при усилията, които България полага да реализира европейска
демокрация като тази в Англия или Германия?
Следват копия от моите молби и жалби, на които не съм получил отговор.
Мога само да се моля за отговори и за разрешение на проблемите.
За верността на превода
Мариана Радулова
В.л. № 434 по списъка на СГС за 2002г.
10
КОПИЕ
Република България/Republic of Bulgaria
Министерство на правосъдието/Ministry of Justice
Канцеларията на министъра/Office of the Minister
"Славянска" № 1/Slavianski St. No. 1
София, 1000/Sofia 1000
България/Bulgaria
Отн.: 94-M-147/00
За яснота Аз ще напиша това на Английския език, и след това част в моя слаб
Български/ For clarity I will write this in the English language.
Before proceeding further I ask the Minister to accept the sincere thanks of my family
and me as citizens of Canada for the letter issued on June 8th 2004 to the Sofia Prison.
My family and I deeply appreciate the intervention of the Ministry of Justice in answer
to our complaints. Regrettably, in the present case this does not appear to be enough.
Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that until now nothing has been
done by the Sofia prison to fulfill the actions requested in writing by
Deputy Minister of Justice Mario Dimitrov. Possibly the Honorable Minister
can enquire into why no steps have been taken.
Again, I thank the Honorable Minister Stankov and Deputy Minister of Justice
Dimitrov for their considered and continued attention,
Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin
Sofia Penitentiary
Group 10
КОПИЕ
The English language text of this Petition follows the Bulgarian text.
От 1998 до сега нито един чужд гражданин лишен от свобода не е получил тези
права.
16. НА ОСНОВАНИЕ ЧЛ. 150 и ЧЛ. 152 (Изм. - ДВ, бр. 36 от 1979 г., изм.
- ДВ, бр. 62 от 2002 г.) ОТ ЗИН, моля Министъра на правосъдието да
разяснява какво постановление, наредба, заповед или нормативен акт
е издаден от Министъра на правосъдието и Министъра на финансите
,който разрешава да се отстрани чл. 150 ал. 1 б „а”18 и чл. 15219 от
ЗИН, когато ситуацията е относно чужди граждани лишени от
свобода?
Подадено с уважение днес, 20.6.2004 г.
Майкъл Капустин
Mike Page 27 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 28 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 29 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 30 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 31 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 32 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
Mike Page 33 of 37 25.5.2005 г.
КОПИЕ
КОПИЕ
SCHEDULE “A”
THOSE NON-BULGARIAN NATIONALS HAVING LESS THAN 5 YEARS REMAINING
(TO THE BEST OF THE PETITIONERS KNOWLEDGE)
Sofia Central Penitentiary
SСПИСЪК
1
Чл. 23. Дирекция "Връзки с обществеността и протокол":
1. по отношение на връзките с обществеността и работата с предложенията, сигналите, жалбите и молбите:
ж) изслушва гражданите, които посещават приемната, насочва ги и им разяснява техните права и задължения;
з) регистрира и разглежда постъпилите предложения, сигнали, жалби и молби, като сезира съответните
директори на дирекции за извършване на проверка и изясняване на случая в ръководените от тях
административни звена;
и) препраща предложенията, сигналите, жалбите и молбите на компетентния орган, когато разрешаването на
въпроса не е в правомощията на министерството;
к) уведомява подателите за взетите решения и предприетите мерки;
2
Art. 23. Directorate “Public relations and protocol” shall:
1. with regard to the public relations and the work with the proposals, the signals, the appeals and the applications:
g) listen to the citizens, visiting the reception office, direct them and explain their rights and obligations;
h) register and consider the received proposals, signals, appeals and applications, addressing the respective directors of
directorates for implementing a check and clarification of the case in the administrative units, managed by them;
КОПИЕ
i) redirect the proposals, signals, appeals and applications to the competent body, when the solving of the problem is not
within the authority of the ministry;
j) notify the senders about the decisions taken and the undertaken measures;
3
Art. 19. (Amend. SG 84/77, SG 28/82, SG 21/90) (1) (amend. SG 73/98) The general management of the places for
deprived from liberty and the control over their activity shall be implemented by the Ministry of Justice
4
Art. 70. (1) (Amend., SG 153/98) The court can rule a probationary release ahead of term for the remaining part of the
punishment of imprisonment regarding a convicted with exemplary conduct and honest attitude to the work, and who
has proven his reformation and has served actually no less than half of the imposed punishment.
5
Art. 17. (1) (amend. SG 28/82) At the prisons and the reformatories shall be established commissions, comprised by:
chairman – the chief of the prison or reformatory, and members – judge from the county court, deputy chiefs,
representative of the supervision commission and the psychologist of the prison or the reformatory.
(4) At the sessions of the commission a prosecutor from the regional prosecutor’s office shall be present.
(5) (Amend. SG 62/02) The commissions shall take decisions about:
3. proposals to the court for early liberation or early liberation on probation;
6
Art. 8. (1) (amend. SG 62/02) the penalty imprisonment shall be executed by accommodation of the convicted at
certain places for deprivation of liberty and subjecting them to reforming impact.
2) (Amend. SG 28/82, SG 73/98, SG 62/02) The reforming impact shall be implemented by:
1. ensuring of conditions for maintaining of the physical and the psychic health and for respecting of the human dignity
of the convicted;
3. restricting of the negative consequences of the effect of the sentence and the harmful influence of the circle of the
convicted;
4. ensuring of the exercising of the rights of the convicted person;
5. Organizing of labor, reforming, educational, sport and other activities.
7
Art. 9. (Amend. SG 84/77, SG 21/90, SG 62/02) the places for deprivation from liberty shall be created and closed
with an order by the Minister of Justice. They must meet the guarding and the sanitary requirements and have the
necessary residential, communal – household and other premises.
8
Art. 8a. (new – SG 62/02) (1) the places for execution of the penalty imprisonment shall be prisons and reformatories.
(3) At the prisons, the reformatories and the prison hostels the reforming impact shall e implemented differentiated with
regard to the different categories convicted.
9
Art. 12. (1) (amend. SG 28/82, SG 62/02) the recidivists shall serve their penalty in separate prisons and prison hostels
of closed type.
10
Art. 42. The regime at the prisons and the reformatories shall assist the achievement of the objectives of art. 2 by:
d) creating of appropriate living ambience;
11
Art. 33. (1) The deprived from liberty shall, according to the established regime, have right to:
b) Visits. The conversation during the visits shall be carried out in Bulgarian. When the convicted or his visitors do not
know Bulgarian, the administration shall ensure an interpreter for their account;
12
Art. 61. (1) (amend. SG 73/98) the deprived from liberty can work in commercial companies, other corporate bodies
and sole entrepreneurs under conditions and by order, determined by the Minister of Justice.
13
Art. 64d. (new – SG 13/97, amend. SG 73/98; amend. SG 120/02) the raising and spending of the resources of State
enterprise “Fund Prisons” shall be provided by an ordinance of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance.
14
Art. 66a. (new – SG 62/02) (1) For each newly entered deprived from liberty an individual program for impact shall
be prepared, which is based on:
1. Assessment of his personal peculiarities, inclination to aggression and auto-aggression, alcohol or narcotic
dependence, sexual deviations etc.
2. statement of the physician of the prison or the reformatory about the physical and psychic health and ability to
work;
3. Assessment of the need to be included in general education or professional – technical education.
(2) The individual program for impact shall be complied with the type of the crime, the extent of the penalty and the
type and the place for deprivation from liberty.
15
Art. 74. (1) For marked discipline, for significant labor achievements and for other positive acts the deprived from
liberty can be stimulated with the following rewards:
c) increase of the time for stay in the open air;
КОПИЕ
Отн: 94-М-147/00
Също така е факт, че във всеки и всички до един от списъка на чуждите граждани
лишени от свобода с наказание „глоба”, Агенция започва да действа само след
получаване на молбата от лишения от свобода или след моят „Сигнал” до
Министъра на правосъдието и Министъра на финансите.
ДОКЛАД
От: Майкъл Капустин, канадски гражданин
10 - та група
Sofia Central Prison
Ref: 94-M-147/00
I respectfully request you accept and act on the following two documents.
One is my report on recent developments after my “Signal” of malfeasant activities
connected to Article 70 of the CC in conj, Article 17 of the Law on the Execution of
Punishments. This was filed with your office on 13.01.2004 with incoming No. 94-11-147/00,
copy attached.
The second is a complaint and appeal to the Chief Prosecutor of Bulgaria according to
Article 43§61 of the CCP. I believe my efforts to file directly with the Chief Prosecutor
complaints against decisions made by the prosecutors of the Supreme Prosecutors Office
are being somehow being frustrated. I never receive even an acknowledgement of my
complaints, never mind answers. I am therefore filing with your office in the hope it will be
received by the Chief Prosecutor and precipitate a reply.
and assist me in bringing my complaint to the attention of the Chief Prosecutor of the
Republic of Bulgaria.
Signed this 27/02/2004
Michael Kapoustin
1
Функции на прокурора в наказателното производство (Загл. изм. - ДВ, бр. 70 от 1999 г.)
Чл. 43.
(6) (Изм. - ДВ, бр. 50 от 1995 г., предишна ал. 3, изм. - ДВ, бр. 70 от 1999 г., изм. и доп. - ДВ, бр. 50
от 2003 г.) Главният прокурор на Република България осъществява надзор за законност и
методическо ръководство върху дейността на всички прокурори.
Functions of the Prosecutor in the Criminal Proceedings (Title, Amend., SG, No.70 of 1999)
Art. 43.
(6) (Amend., SG, No. 50/1995; prev. para 3, amend. SG, No. 50/2003 – takes effect three days after May
30, 2003) The Chief Prosecutor of the Republic of Bulgaria shall exercise oversight for legality and
methodical direction on the activities of all prosecutors.
До: Министерство на правосъдието
Канцеларията на министъра
Ул. "Славянска" № 1
София1 1000
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен
софийски затвор,
10-та група
Respectfully yours
12/22/2003
Michael Kapoustin
ДО: ПРЕЗИДЕНТА НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
БУЛ. "Дондуков" № 2
София, България
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен
софийски затвор,
10-та група
Господин Президент,
I provide you with and ask that you accept the copy of my
signal to the Minister of Finance, Bulgaria, to whom I have
reported where to locate certain documents and facts that
will prove my allegations to the Government of Canada that
conditional release on parole or foreign prisoner transfers
from Bulgaria are subject to the prisoner first paying a
bribe.
An investigation will relieve both the number of occurrences
and those officials who are responsible for these crimes.
I request an investigation be started.
Respectfully yours
12/22/2003
Michael Kapoustin
ДО: МИНИСТЪР ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛЯ НА
РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ
БУЛ. "Дондуков" № 1
София, България
МОЛБА
От Майкъл Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода в Централен
софийски затвор,
10-та група
I provide you with and ask that you accept the copy of my
signal to the Minister of Finance, Bulgaria, to whom I have
reported where to locate certain documents and facts that will
prove my allegations to the Government of Canada that
conditional release on parole or foreign prisoner transfers
from Bulgaria are subject to the prisoner first paying a
bribe.
An investigation will relieve both the number of occurrences
and those officials who are responsible for these crimes.
I request an investigation be started.
Respectfully yours
12/22/2003
Michael Kapoustin
ДО: Министерство на финансите
Канцеларията на министъра
Бул. "Раковски" № 142
1040, София
Копие: Министерство на външните
работи
Лестър Б. Пиърсън Билдинг
Тауър Б3
125 Съсекс Драйв
Отава, Онтарио
К1А 0G2
Канада
От: Майкъл Капустин
канадски гражданин
лишен от свобода
Централен софийски затвор
10 та група
Отн: чл.172 §(1) ДПК във
чл.170§(2) НПК във чл.
Art. 152. ЗИН (SG 36/79,
SG 62/02)
СИГНАЛИЗИРАМ
Престъпления Срещу Държавния Бюджет
и
НЕБРЕЖНОСТ НА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ ОФИЦИАЛНО
ЗАДЪЛЖЕНИЕ
СПИСЬК НА НЕ ОСВОБОЖДАВАНИ
СПИСЬК НА ОСВОБОЖДАВАНИ
Отн: СИГНАЛИЗИРАМ
Престъпления Срещу Държавния
Бюджет
и
НЕБРЕЖНОСТ НА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ
ОФИЦИАЛНО ЗАДЪЛЖЕНИЕ
ДОПЪЛНИТЕЛЕН СИГНАЛ
Sincerely,
Michael Kapoustin
Signed this Monday, December 22, 2003