Geneva, Switzerland:
UN human rights professionals referred to as Monday for an international probe into the poisoning of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny and his quick release as the EU authorized sanctions on 4 senior Russian officials involved in the detention.
Agnes Callamard, the UN’s unique rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, and Irene Khan, the best specialist on freedom of opinion and expression, insisted on the require to assure accountability for the “sinister poisoning”.
They demanded Navalny’s “immediate release” from a Russian penal colony, exactly where he was transferred final week from a Moscow prison.
EU member states meanwhile authorized sanctions on 4 senior Russian justice and law enforcement officials involved in his detention. They will be banned from travelling to the bloc and see any assets they hold there frozen.
President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent opponent has been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in a penal colony for violating parole terms even though in Germany recovering from a poisoning attack.
The 44-year-old spent months recovering from the close to fatal poisoning with the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok that he claims was ordered by Putin — anything the Kremlin has repeatedly denied.
But on Monday, Callamard told reporters that she and Khan had concluded that “Russia is responsible for the attempted arbitrary killing” of Navalny.
“Clear, Sinister Warning”
Khan told journalists that Navalny’s poisoning with Novichok may possibly have been “carried out deliberately to send a clear, sinister warning that this would be the fate of anyone else who would criticise and oppose the government.”
“Novichok was precisely chosen to cause fear.”
The independent professionals, who are appointed by the UN but do not speak on its behalf, stated Navalny’s lawyers had asked them to look into the case back in August, and that they had sent their findings in a letter to Russian authorities in December.
The letter, which they published Monday immediately after a 60-day confidentiality clause expired and which had but to get a response from the Kremlin, detailed proof pointing to the probably involvement of government officials in the poisoning, they stated.
They pointed out that the novel kind of Novichok employed in the poisoning “could only be found within and amongst state actors.”
The letter also pointed out that at the time of the poisoning, Navalny had been below “intensive government surveillance… making it unlikely that any third party could have administered such a banned chemical without the knowledge of the Russian authorities.”
The professionals deplored that the authorities had shown no indicators of seriously investigating his poisoning, insisting on the require for an international probe.
“Given the inadequate response of the domestic authorities, the use of prohibited chemical weapons, and the apparent pattern of attempted targeted killings, we believe that an international investigation should be carried out as a matter of urgency,” they stated.
– Will ‘be held responsible’ –
The professionals also stressed that the Russian government was accountable for Navalny’s “care and protection” and would “be held responsible for any harm that may befall him.”
Asked by Russian media about the appropriateness of supporting Navalny immediately after Amnesty International final week stripped him of his “prisoner of conscience” status more than previous comments he had created advocating “hatred”, Khan stressed that “human rights belong to all of us.”
She did not comment on the content of Navalny’s prior comments, but stated the experts’ help was “because his right to life was being violated, because his right not to be tortured was violated.”
The professionals also highlighted that the attack on Navalny appeared to be aspect of a broader trend of arbitrary killings and attempted murders of government critics stretching back decades.
“This pattern requires an emphatic and persistent response by the international community,” they stated.
They also pointed to preceding attacks on Navalny, insisting Russian authorities had at the really least failed in their duty to shield him.
“Even in the unlikely event that a third party could somehow have committed this act, Russia would have failed in its obligation to protect the life of Mr. Navalny against such non-state actors.”