How Russian teenagers are being locked up for expressing dissent

[Travelingguy]

I am so sick of Russian propaganda.  Even after all these years, it still turns my stomach.

[Moses]

9 hours ago, reader said:

But he was only killed by Putin.

Oh, yeah, Putin personally came to this colony... I doubt what Putin even remember name of Navalny 

[Moses]

Navalny is a common swindler and crook. He has been convicted multiple times for embezzlement and fraud.

The European Court of Human Rights has considered every criminal case brought by the Russian Federation against Navalny. The very first case was brought in the Russian Federation on the fact of theft of timber and money in 2007.

The ECHR decision can be read here https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161060

The case is NOT recognized as politically motivated.

[unicorn]

31 minutes ago, Moses said:

Navalny is a common swindler and crook. He has been convicted multiple times for embezzlement and fraud.

The European Court of Human Rights has considered every criminal case brought by the Russian Federation against Navalny. The very first case was brought in the Russian Federation on the fact of theft of timber and money in 2007.

The ECHR decision can be read here https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161060

The case is NOT recognized as politically motivated.

Not recognized by YOU, personally, as politically motivated (supposedly, although I doubt that even that's true). Everybody, including those judges, recognized that the charges were politically motivated, although that was not their task. Their task was to decide whether the trial deviated from fair international standards for legal proceedings, and the document you produced proved just that:
"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1.  Decides, unanimously, to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares, unanimously, the complaints under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention admissible and, by a majority, the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;"

Or, more specifically:

"102.  The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints about the manner in which evidence was admitted and assessed and the way the witnesses were examined converge on the same underlying allegation that the criminal proceedings against X and the two applicants had been structured in a way which rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. They effectively alleged that X’s conviction in separate accelerated proceedings had been instrumental in circumventing important guarantees they would have been entitled to if all three co-accused had been tried together. Likewise, the complaint lodged under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the formulae used in the judgment against X and the prejudicial impact which that had on the applicants’ sentence, essentially refers to the same underlying issue. It follows that even though each of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3(d) of the Convention would in principle be capable of raising a separate issue under the Convention, in the present case it is appropriate to treat the specific allegations as elements of general fairness.

103.  In the present case, the criminal charges against the applicants were based on the same facts as those against X, and the three individuals were accused of conspiring to steal the same assets. It is therefore undeniable that any facts established in the proceedings against X and any legal findings made therein would have been directly relevant to the applicants’ case. In such circumstances, it was essential for safeguards to be in place to ensure that the procedural steps and decisions taken in the proceedings against X would not undermine the fairness of the hearing in the subsequent proceedings against the applicants. This was particularly so, given that the applicants were legally precluded from any form of participation in the disjoined proceedings as they had not been granted any status which would have allowed them to challenge the decisions and findings made therein.

104.  The Court has previously highlighted the first and most obvious guarantee to be secured when co-accused are tried in separate sets of proceedings, notably the courts’ obligation to refrain from any statements that may have a prejudicial effect on the pending proceedings, even if they are not binding (see Karaman, cited above, §§ 42-43 and 64-56). If the nature of the charges makes it unavoidable for the involvement of third parties to be established in one set of proceedings and those findings would be consequential on the assessment of the legal responsibility of the third parties tried separately, this should be considered as a serious obstacle for disjoining the cases. Any decision to examine cases with such strong factual ties in separate criminal proceedings must be based on a careful assessment of all countervailing interests, and the co-accused must be given an opportunity to object to the cases being separated.

105.  The second requirement for the conduct of concurrent proceedings is that the quality of res judicata would not be attached to facts admitted in a case to which the individuals were not party. The state of the evidence admitted in one case must remain purely relative and its effect strictly limited to that particular set of proceedings. In other words, in the present case no finding of fact made in the proceedings against X could have been admitted in the applicants’ case without full and proper examination at the applicants’ trial. Moreover, the procedure followed by the court in X’s case had been accelerated, and the establishment of facts had been a result of plea-bargaining, not the judicial examination of evidence. Consequently, the facts relied on in that case had been legally assumed rather than proven. As such, they could not have been transposed to another set of criminal proceedings without their admissibility and credibility being scrutinised and validated in those other proceedings, in an adversarial manner, like all other evidence.

106.  These two basic requirements have not been complied with in the present case...". 

It seems you guessed incorrectly that no one would actually look at your reference, and you'd get away with another one of your lies. Your lack of shame is simply astounding. You have absolutely NO capacity for shame for your lies.

 

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, Moses said:

 I doubt what Putin even remember name of Navalny 

Senility and dementia already sets in ? He is not that old ? You may be persecuted for revealing state secrets 

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, Moses said:

Navalny is a common swindler and crook.

We are not talking  about THAT Navalny. We were talking about dissident killed in penal colony. I doubt even they are related