Putin critic Navalny clears first hurdle in bid for Russia presidency - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gudman;53008277]Rather outright stating that if the charges were proven to be bollocks by ECHR - he is 100% not guilty, opposition or not. Ya know, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that stupid shit? Like, "entirely innocent", not "just a not guilty enough, maybe 30% guilty".[/QUOTE] ECHR can't do that. They can only decide, how fair the trial was, and they already decided, that Yves Rocher case wasn't fair against Alexey himself. You know, the same ECHR he used as a lure for his last protest?

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;53008363]ECHR can't do that. They can only decide, how fair the trial was, and they already decided, that Yves Rocher case wasn't fair against Alexey himself. You know, the [b]same ECHR he used as a lure for his last protest?[/b][/QUOTE] Is that a lousy state TV talking point I see? "He promised 10 grand euros to kids"? I'm certain you do know better than that. Anyway, ECHR can decide if the trial was fair, yes. To be a bit more precise, ECHR digs through the case and decides if it was procedurally and technically in accordance with the law. And it decided the trials in question were not. What does that mean, do you think? It means exactly what it says - the judgement and conviction were unlawful, as defendants' rights were violated. And that leaves us with "100% innocent, in absence of lawful conviction".

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;53008363]ECHR can't do that. They can only decide, how fair the trial was, and they already decided, that Yves Rocher case wasn't fair against Alexey himself. You know, the same ECHR he used as a lure for his last protest?[/QUOTE] Don't be a vatnik. You know that if ECHR was not right then Russia would have objected against that decision and not pay any compensation to Navalny. But no, they paid compensation and fabricated another case against him (which is ~99% copy of the old one)

I've heard it both ways. Kirovles-2 forest boogaloo being a carbon copy of the first case indeed is suspicious, but so is the timing of registration of Oficerov's company. IIRC it was registered literally days before the deal, seemingly only to purchase wood in that exact deal. ECHR is, firstly, European, I wouldn't put it past our "foreign partners" to rock the boat.

[QUOTE=Demeschik;53008894]I've heard it both ways. Kirovles-2 forest boogaloo being a carbon copy of the first case indeed is suspicious, but so is the timing of registration of Oficerov's company. IIRC it was registered literally days before the deal, seemingly only to purchase wood in that exact deal. ECHR is, firstly, European, I wouldn't put it past our "foreign partners" to rock the boat.[/QUOTE] Why fuck up the procedure then, if the case had any ground to stand on? Because ECHR doesn't rule if the case is solid or not, only if one of the parties' rights were violated. And they were. As for the "European" and "foreign partners" thing, well that's a miss, since ECHR has reputation which is very important for an institution like that - they wouldn't risk it for some kind of nebulous political gain way down the line.