(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In its February issue this year, Ny Tid has examined the realities of the Magnitsky case. Where other Norwegian media have contented themselves with stating that there is disagreement about the facts, Ny Tid's journalists have gone to the sources to find out for themselves whether Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian whistleblower who was imprisoned, tortured and killed.
Ny Tids investigation confirms the story the Helsinki Committee and a number of other human rights organizations have concluded. Magnitsky exposed large-scale fraud and public officials collaborating with criminals. They defrauded the state with the help of three investment companies they stole from Bill Browder, Magnitsky's client. And in retrospect, we see a Russian state that failed in one of its foremost tasks: to investigate and hold accountable people who commit very serious crimes.
In exile. Russian authorities have long sought to rewrite this story. Andrei Nekrasov's movie The Magnitsky Act brings little new in that way. It uses a number of more and less ethical tools to cast doubt on history. In a way, it's well done, since this is one of the best documented human rights cases we know of.
Nekrasov makes a significant point of the fact that Magnitsky did not provide evidence of his claims that named police officers had assisted a criminal gang in stealing the Russian state's money. This is just one of several points where it is difficult to take Nekrasov seriously. Magnitsky, together with a very competent team of lawyers, helped to formulate comprehensive reviews of Russian prosecutors from the beginning of December 2007 to July 2008. In the summer of 2008, he and his colleagues had a full record of the method used by the fraudsters.
It is probably true that the lawyers were reluctant to go public with all the information they had about the offenses. An important consideration was the fear of safety. The lawyers were already subjected to great pressure in the form of legal action. They also feared physical impacts. There is one basic relationship Nekrasov says about: Magnitsky's colleagues left all Moscow for fear of the consequences. They are living in exile today.
Magnitsky's colleagues left all of Moscow for fear of the consequences. They are living in exile today.
Corrupt states. Magnitsky, on the other hand, remained, and took the opportunity to notify competent authorities of the fraud. He believed (or hoped) that he was ultimately protected by the law. There he was wrong.
In our opinion, a Magnitsky hearing to shed light on the case would not have benefited from a review of Nekrasov's film sequence by sequence. It will create more confusion than enlightenment. We would rather invite the leading investigators of the case – both of the arrest of Magnitsky, the assaults on him in prison and the death – to present the most important documentation.
We also want to look further. The Magnitsky case is about more than one man and the injustice committed against him. It illustrates a widespread problem in Russia and other authoritarian and corrupt states.
This applies to widespread corruption where government officials roughly supply themselves with the community's coffers, often in collaboration with criminal networks. The problem is also that those who uncover the corruption and inform about it, often themselves become victims of widespread abuse. But this problem also has an international dimension: the money for corruption ends up in western countries and tax havens where it is laundered. The profiteers live good days thanks to the fact that we are too passive spectators for this to happen.
We will shed light on these matters at the hearing. The United States, the United Kingdom and Estonia have already adopted schemes that can freeze assets and / or refuse entry to persons who have been involved in corruption and human rights abuses against whistleblowers and human rights defenders. Canada is expected to be the next country out. Norway should also be at the forefront of this development.
Invited to the hearing. In our opinion, the fact that these schemes bear Magnitsky's name is well-founded. But it is also true that when the truthfulness of the story of the whistleblower Magnitsky is challenged, the best documentation must be presented. And the critics must be allowed to speak.
We will open up to that. Nekrasov and others critical of the Magnitsky case will be invited to the hearing. We will set the date soon.
Ekeløve-Slydal is Assistant Secretary General of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee.
