On May 23, during his annual meeting with representatives of Russian business, President Vladimir Putin commented on a possible amnesty for those imprisoned for economic crimes, proposed by Russian business ombudsman, Boris Titov.

Titov’s plan had been to start the amnesty on May 26, the Day of Russian Entrepreneurship. The ombudsman’s plan reflects the prevailing consensus in Russia that thousands of entrepreneurs are unnecessarily or improperly imprisoned, and that this stunts economic development, encourages capital flight and leads to migration abroad of some of Russia’s most creative and productive citizens.

Russian news agency ITAR TASS reported that President Putin said the amnesty project is not fully prepared and he proposed to analyse it further:

“I propose to thoroughly analyse it with the help of businessmen, experts and the general prosecutors’ office; to check it, weigh everything and then make a decision.”

Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, and the head of the criminal law committee, Pavel Krashennikov, have voiced support for the amnesty. They have noted, however, that it would first be necessary to take a closer look at the facts.

The UK’s leading political radio programme, Today, highlighted the Khodorkovsky case as the key question regarding any possible amnesty.

BBC reporter Steve Rosenberg asked Russian MP and member of the Committee on Economic Policy, Viktor Zvagelsky:

“If the Amnesty goes ahead the big question is whether jailed Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky will be released? The Kremlin critic is currently serving his second sentence for economic crimes.”

Zvagelsky replied:

“We are only going to consider amnesty for those prisoners serving their first jail term – we shouldn’t make exceptions for Khodorkovsky.”

Meanwhile, Khodorkovsky’s lawyer Vadim Klyuvgant commented on Putin’s statement:

“All this is very familiar, and, perhaps, this is even more terrible. Because getting accustomed to this is a separate drama of our time.  So what do we have here? Firstly such an elegant methodology to launch the proposal on an endless circle: let’s talk, let’s see, let’s take in experts, let’s involve the Prosecutor General’s Office, etc.

Secondly, even scarier, is the key phrase. For the law graduate that phrase is monstrous. I mean the words that ‘there are other categories of citizens who are formally convicted for economic crimes, but the level of their danger to the public goes far beyond the nature of the problem you are talking about’ (as cited by RIA Novosti).

Once upon a time we could witness proletarian bluntness [from Putin]; things were spoken out straight with names and surnames. Now, since everything has to be more sterile on the surface, surnames, names, and other identifying details are no longer pronounced (to prevent, maybe, the European Court from noticing). And here we are – no names, all in general terms, but whoever has to will understand what, about whom and why it was said. 

In Russia, the guarantor of the Constitution officially, clearly and in front of the whole world is saying that we convict people for one thing, but, in fact, it’s for something else. And this is ‘normal’. They cannot be freed just like that, and the experts with the Prosecutor General’s Office (the main body protecting human rights and the champion of the law) must take it from here and take this into account.”

The Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports that a special debate dedicated to Russia’s political prisoners is going to take place on June 5 at the European Parliament.

Members of the Russian Opposition are planning a photo exhibition focusing on the harsh actions of Russian police during the May 6, 2012 Bolotnaya Square protests. In addition, they will present MEPs with a report setting out a different version of events at Bolotnaya Square from that supplied by the Russian authorities.  They will also raise the situation with regard to the ‘foreign agents’ law and the crack-down on NGOs.  

The article further suggests that the European Parliament will propose a resolution condemning the Russian authorities and speculates that the problem of political imprisonment in Russia will be raised at the Russia-EU summit.

The debate is organised by the ALDE Group in the European Parliament. The Group’s speaker on Russia, Kristiina Ojuland, noted that it was due to be dedicated to Mikhail Khodorkovksky, who will have spent ten years in prison by October 2013.  However, she said that Russia’s political climate had deteriorated to such extent that she believed it was now no longer possible to focus on just one individual and issue. It is likely that the debate will also focus on the possible introduction of Europe’s own “Magnitsky list” – an issue frequently raised by parliamentarian at the EU.

Read the full article in Russian here.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer, Vadim Klyuvgant, has commented on the recent talk of a possible amnesty for entrepreneurs and its relevance to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev:

“Along with the amnesty it is also necessary to improve the institution of parole, and to change the law and legal practice. If the talk about amnesty is not a sham, but a sincere intention to put an end to the arbitrary treatment of entrepreneurship in general, particularly in the field of criminal justice, it is necessary to make changes across the board.

We have accumulated a backlog of arbitrariness, injustice and lawlessness. Amnesty is an act of humanity, generosity and compassion. Unfortunately, in 21^st century Russia these concepts are forgotten. For many years there has been no decent amnesty.

The amnesty, in my opinion, is necessary. I cannot presume whether the amnesty will be applied to Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev – guessing is not for the lawyer. I think that, up to this point there has been a block preventing the release of these people. It is an unwritten rule; there is no guidance on this subject.

If we speak using simple terms, they [Khodorkovsky and Lebedev] have overstayed in prison for all imaginable and unimaginable “sins”. And I mean not what they were convicted for – there is no crime neither in the first nor in the second case. Even in the days of Stalin 10 years would have been an enormous term. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, from whatever position one would like to reason, would have had to be home a long time ago, if we did not live in a cannibalistic state.”

The original comment in Russian can be found on Osobaya Bukva.

Klyuvgant  also explained the specifics of a possible business amnesty on the Russian online television channel, The Rain. His interview (in Russian) can be viewed here, and on his blog on the Echo of Moscow Russian radio station website.