2006.03.29 addendum marian

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

1/22

MKapoustin Page 1 of 22 March 14, 2006

:

-

. 35

1113

: 04-277/02, 2/1999.

4/2001. . . 17

. . 70

. 1

1000

,

. 4 5

.. 1118 , . 200 . 1, , . .. . 17/2004..

- 04 -

277/04.10.2002 . ,

. 4 [ - 04 -

277],

,

. 6, . 26, . 2, . 53, . 1, . 57, . 1, . 58 60, . 1

. , - . 3 . 14 .

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

2/22


. 2, 14

. 20 4 29.03.2001. ( ,

,

, , .

. 34 06.04.2001.) . 12 . 1, . 3 2

19.04.1999. ( 2

,

, . . 39 27.04.1999.,; . 7982

22.12.2000. . 4 12.01.2001, . 5/99, . 305; . 2/2001.;

.349, . 3, . 1, 127) . 4 - 04 277

. 3, 7, 20

26 ( , . 14668, 999 (1976.), . 171); ,

, G.A. res. 39/461

. 4 . 1 . 4. 3 . 2 . 2, . 8 . 2, .

12, . 12 . 14 . 4 .

,

- 04 - 277/04.10.2002 , 4

29.03.2001. , 2

19.04.1999. .

For clarity and as an aid to this Court the Applicant provides the following tables of

citations, contents and index.

Facts Not Open to Dispute

1.1. Not a Matter of Choice Property Status, Foreign Law and Prisons non-

Bulgarian citizens and their governments are unable to secure transfers under

the Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

1.1.1.That the former Prosecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria FILCHEV,

after receiving his mandate in 1999, established a policy and practice whereby

the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office was instructed to refuse all

applications from non-Bulgarian prisoners requesting transfers under the

Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons if it was found by the

prosecutors office that the applicant and his family had a property status

[money] insufficient to pay off his financial debts to the Bulgarian State or a

private Bulgarian citizens [see.

1.1.2.That the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office considers refusing a prisoner

transfer request as [see above 1.1.1.] as a reasonable coercive measure for1 39/46 - . .

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

3/22


forcing non-Bulgarian citizens or their families to make a cash settlement of a

contractual or administrative debt or fine owed to a Bulgarian citizen or the

Bulgarian State.1.1.3.That the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office makes no attempt to determine

if the property status of a non-Bulgarian offender or his immediate family is

such as would reasonably permit the making of a cash payment in settlement of

a contractual or administrative debt or fine owed to a Bulgarian citizen or the

Bulgaria State and without causing undue hardship.

1.1.4.That the Prosecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria makes no similar

demand for a cash settlement of foreign debts when it concerns a Bulgaria

citizen requesting a transfer to Bulgarian under the same convention

[Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons], and that notwithstanding

that the Bulgarian prisoner has similar unpaid contractual or administrative debtor fines owed by them to a foreign citizen or state.

1.1.5.That the reverse is true, the Government of Bulgaria and Prosecutors General

for the Republic of Bulgaria have insisted before foreign governments that the

transfer of its citizens from foreign prisons cannot be conditional on their first

making cash settlement of what are impossible sums [see the case of Bulgarian

medics in Libya and in force civil judgments of Libyan courts against Bulgarian

citizens and awarded to families of HIV infected Libyan children, Government

of Libya demanding cash settlement before agreeing to transfer Bulgarian

citizens or allowing them to return to Bulgaria].

1.1.6.That the former Prosecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria FILCHEV,after receiving his mandate in 1999, also established a policy and practice

whereby the Prosecutors General would refuse a foreign governments request

for transfer of its citizen [Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons] ifthe criminal law of the requesting state and sentencing guidelines of its criminal

courts are according to the personal opinion of Bulgarias Prosecutors General

incompatible with Bulgarian law [see ]

1.1.7.That furthermore, the former Prosecutors General for the Republic of Bulgaria

FILCHEV established a further policy and practice whereby Bulgarias

Prosecutors General would refuse a foreign governments request for transfer of

its citizen [Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons] it in theProsecutors Generals personal opinion the prison system in the Requesting

State and prison conditions are not as harsh as those found in Bulgaria [see also]

1.1.8.That as a result of the above, no transfer has been approved by Bulgarias

Prosecutors General of a non-Bulgarian citizen convicted for crimes in

Bulgarian if the prisoner is a national of a western democracy like Canada or a

member state of the European Union and as a consequence the criminal laws

and sentencing guidelines in the Requesting State because they are less severe

are therefore incompatible with Bulgarian criminal law.

1.1.9.That as a result of the above, no transfer application is accepted by Bulgarias

Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office freomGeneral of a non-Bulgarian citizenconvicted for crimes in Bulgarian if the prisoner less severe sentencing or prison

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

4/22


conditions and all non-Bulgarian citizens having a property preventing the

settlement so debts, are given no other alternative by the State of Bulgaria except

to serve the full term of their imprisonment in a Bulgaria prison. And where, as apractical consequence thereof, they will be denied contact with their families and

are opportunities that their own societies would otherwise offer for their eventual

rehabilitation.

1.2. No Possibility of Parole Nationality and Property - A Different Legal Status is

Created for Non-Bulgarians Accessing Conditional Early Release

1.2.1.That in 2003 the Respondent Ministry for Justice published and notification

entitled Information Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners inthe Sofia PrisonElaborated with the Financial Support of the European

Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003 [ 2003 .

]

and claims to have distributed this to all non-Bulgarian citizens.

1.2.2.That on page 7 of the 2003 .

it is written that non-Bulgarian citizens have no possibility to candidate for conditional early release

[see article 70(1) Bulgarian Criminal Law] if their or their familys property

status is such as does not allow for them to make payments of money to the

budget of the Respondent Ministry for Justice or to settle debts allegedly owed

Bulgarian citizens.

1.2.3.That the only exceptions made by the Prosecutors General to the foregoing are

those non-Bulgarian citizens;

1.2.3.1.Who have paid bribes and thereby secured from within prison what are

forged bank and other official documents falsely showing their having

settles having families whose property status is different from the majority

and allows them to make payments of money to the budget of the

Respondent Ministry for Justice or to Bulgarian citizens [see prison

dossiers of ];

1.2.4.

1.2.4.1.

1.2.4.2..

1.3. Discrimination Policies Practiced at Sofia Central Prison - Facts Relevant to

Unlawful Segregation According to Nationality Denying of Access to Equal

Opportunity Prison Housing and Fulltime Gainful Employment, Vocational

Training and Higher Education and Access to Religious Worship

1.3.1.1.That the prison in the city of Sofia [see item 4 ORDER LC 4-277/2002and item 14 ORDINANCE 4/2001 and the words

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

5/22


] has attached to it three (3) types of

penitentiary facilities [see the law according to article 8a(2) of the Law for

the Execution of Punishments ];1.3.1.2.That the penitentiary facility located at 21 General Stoletov in the city

of Sofia is designated by the Respondent Ministry for Justice as a

maximum security penitentiary facility to be attached to the prison in the

city of Sofia [hereinafter referred to only as the Sofia Central Prison] and

as designated exclusively for the isolation of repeat offenders [see

article 12 of the Law for the Execution of Punishments and the words

in conj. with article

18(1) item 8 of ORDINANCE 4/2001 and the words

- .];

1.3.1.3.That the Sofia Central prison, because of its designation by the

Respondent Ministry for Justice as a maximum security penitentiary

facility for the isolation of dangerous repeat criminal offenders, has as a

result of that designation, the harshest and most stringent security measures

and physical restrictions imposed on the movement of prisoners both on

and off prison grounds [see article 44(5) of the Law for the Execution of

Punishments and the words

]

and that as a result of these security restrictions there are very few

opportunities for any employment or no possibility for direct or frequent

family contact.

1.3.1.4.That of the three (3) penitentiary facilities types attached to the prison in

the city of city, the Sofia Central Prison is intended by the respondent to be

the most psychologically oppressive and dehumanizing.

1.3.1.5.That presently there are approximately 800 individuals with criminal

sentences in force and who have been assigned by officials of the

Respondent to serve the term of their imprisonment at the Sofia CentralPrison.

1.3.1.6.That of the 800 prisoners now servicing their terms of imprisonment at the

Sofia Central Prison, more than 25% or some 108 non-Bulgarian citizens

are isolated in the 10th Prisoners group and who are not repeat criminal

offenders, not at least according to former Deputy Minister ofr Justice Mr.

Mario Dimitrov [see Imitrov .

1.3.1.7.That according to the instructions of the Respondent, no more that 5% of

these 800 prisoners can be first time offenders [see article The majority of

these are considered dangerous repeat criminal offenders [recidivists].

1.3.1.8.That presently there are approximately That all non-Bulgarian citizens

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

6/22


1.3.1.8.1.That the Sofia Central Prison is not permitted to have a prison

population of convicted first time offenders of more than 5% and

who have in writing agreed to serve the terms of their imprisonmentat a maximum security prison accommodating dangerous repeat for

the housing among at the that only with of its prison maximum

security penitentiary facility attached to the prison in the city of Sofia

and.

That all non-Bulgarian citizens having criminal sentences are segregated from all non-

Bulgarian citizens housed at the 10th Prisones Group

Isolation Role of Financial Status and Nationality

That 37 of 104 is the Number of Non-Bulgaria Citizens Denied Candidacy for PossibleParole

As of 31.12.2005, of 37 non-Bulgarian citizens formally eligible for conditional early release

36 were denied a review before the Sofia Prison Parole Commission by Prison Warden

Dimitar Raichev and Deputy Warden Rumen Milev. Thereby no possibly existed for their

candidacy for possible conditional early release before a Bulgarian court of law.

That From 08.2004 to December 2005 Only 3 of 37 Non-Bulgaria Citizens with Debts

Have had a Review by the Sofia Prison Parole Commission

With the exception of the Applicant and possibly two others, none of 37 individuals identified

in the evidence has ever be reviewed by the Sofia Prison parole COMMISSION.

When asked why, Sofia Prison Warden Dimitar Raichev, Deputy Warden Rumen Milev and

of the 10th Prisoners cell block have each cited item 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/2002 as

creating a legal obligation for them as Sofia prison officials to use the possibility of early

release to coerce money from all non-Bulgarian citizens and there families. According to

them. There can be no parole review where the foreign offender or his family is unable to

make payments. These threats are carried out Sofia Prison Warden Dimitar Raichev, Deputy

Warden Rumen Milev and of the 10 th Prisoners cell block in what has proven for the

most part to be a vain attempt to exchange liberty under parole for settling of private financial

obligations to a Bulgarian citizen or the state.

That The Respondent Has In Fact Ordered the Sofia Prison Administration to Offer

Condition Early Release to Non-Bulgarians Only in Exchange for Money

According to the evidence on page 7 of the Information Brochure on the Rights and

Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with the Financial Support of the

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003 for Foreign Citizens as

authored by the Respondent, translated into 8 languages by the Respondent, and then printed

and distributed by Sofia prison officials only to non-Bulgarians. In it on page 7 the

Respondent imposes a financial criterion and the coercive measure of refusing conditional

liberty anyone whose family cannot pay his financial debts. Sofia Prison Warden Raichev and

Deputy Warden Rumen Milev are those who identify the debts to be paid and who create

administrative obstacles to bar access to a judicial procedure. A fact borne out by this Court

and not disputed by the Respondent who has examined each of the names of the 37 non-

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

7/22


Bulgarian citizen eligible for parole and the Sofia Prison Parole Commission PROTOCOLS

starting in August 2004.

That the Respondent has Appended the Criterion of Nationality and Financial Status toArticle 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code

The described coercive measure of liberty in exchange for debt is not a part of law [see Article

70 CC and article 17 Law for the Execution of Punishments]. This coercive measure and

criterion of nationality and financial status has been administratively appended by the

Respondent to article 70 CCand to article 17 Law for the Execution of Punishments. The

nationality and financial criteria for parole are applied in an operative manner by Sofia Prison

Officials who now demand money as well as the only legislated criterion of good behavior, an

a positive attitude to work, and having completed half the term of imprisonment.

Respondent Does Not Consider Discriminatory Criterion and Method of Coercion for

Collecting Debts from Non-Bulgarian Citizens as Unfair or Unlawful

The inability of a non-Bulgarian citizens family to settlement his financial obligations in

Bulgaria is punishment of the prisoner. Who, notwithstanding how exemplary his rewarded by

his requiring he serve the full term of his criminal sentence and beyond, the imprisonment of

non-Bulgarian citizens continues after their release. On release from criminal liability, the

Respondent then remands non-Bulgarian citizens to continued detention under arrest at

facilities of Bulgarias Ministry for Interior until such time as they pay off their financial

obligations in Bulgaria.

That first time offenders who are required to serve their term of imprisonment in a prison of

Sofia are accommodated according to the term of their sentence in one (1) of either of the two

(2) other penitentiary facilities attached to the prison in the city of Sofia, id estlight security[transitional] at Kazichan or medium security [open] at Kremekovski and as is required

by the law according to article 12a of the Law for the Execution of Punishments. Both thesepenitentiary facilities are attached to the prison in Sofia.

That as of 12.31.2005 there are 47 non-Bulgarian citizens and first time offenders eligible for

relocation to either the light or medium security penitentiary facilities attached to the prison in

Sofia. And that the Respondent refused to relocate them.

That the Sofia Central Prison is the designed by the Respondent as the separate

accommodation necessary for the strict control of repeat offenders [recidivist] as required by

the law according to article 12(1) of the Law of the Executions of Punishments.

That only those Bulgarian citizens who are repeat offenders [recidivists] are [see again article12(1) Law for the Execution of Punishments] serving terms of imprisonment at the maximumsecurity penitentiary facility attached to the prison in the city of Sofia, the Sofia Central. The

only exceptions those citizens of Bulgaria and first time offenders who have requesting or

secured work at the Sofia Central prison or are still awaiting relocation to the light or medium

security penitentiary facilities attached to the Sofia prison.

Those prisoners who are not citizens of Bulgarian citizens, like Bulgarian career criminals

[recidivists], are also required to serve the full term of their imprisonment at the same

maximum security penitentiary facility attached to the prison in Sofia, the Sofia Central

prison. Officials and representatives for the Respondent repeatedly have insisted before this

court that where and when it concerns the rights of those prisoners who not citizens of

Bulgaria the Respondent has no legal obligation to observe Bulgarian law according to article

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

8/22


12a of the Law for the Execution of Punishments. Bulgarian career criminals [recidivists] andforeign citizens to be placed into the most severe prison environment.

That those prisoners not citizens of Bulgaria and who are repeat offenders are accommodatedtogether with first time offenders in the same [10th] Prisoners Group of the Sofia Central

prison. Again, Officials and representatives for the Respondent repeatedly insist even before

this court that where and when it concerns the rights of those prisoners who not citizens of

Bulgaria the Respondent has no legal obligation to observe the law according to article 12 ofthe Law for the Execution of Punishments.

That those prisoners [recidivists] to serve the term of their imprisonment at the maximum

security penitentiary facilities [see again article 12(1) of the Law for the Execution ofPunishments] are by virtue of their prior criminal convictions excluded or very limited inopportunities otherwise available to first time offenders according to the law in article

44(2)(3) and (4) and articles 65, 66, 66a, 66b, 68 and 69 of the Law on the Execution ofPunishments.

That those prisoners [first time offenders] serving their term of imprisonment at a penitentiary

facilities of the light security [transitional] Kazichan or medium security [open] types at

Kremekovski [see again article 12a of the Law for the Execution of Punishments ] and

attached to the prison in Sofia are permitted and in fact encouraged by the Respondent to

enjoy the full benefits and opportunities provided for in law in article 44(2)(3) and (4) andarticles 65, 66, 66a, 66b, 68 and 69 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments.

That Officials and representatives for the Respondent have repeatedly insisted that where and

when it concerns the rights of those prisoners who not citizens of Bulgaria they have no legal

obligation to observe the law according to article 44(2)(3) and (4) and articles 65, 66, 66a,66b, 68 and 69 of the Law on the Execution of Punishments. As a result and during the fullterm of their imprisonment, those prisoners who are not Bulgarian citizens are routinely

denied equal access to any form of education, gainful employment, recreation or family

contact under the same conditions permitted first time Bulgarian offenders.

satellite dishes computer etc..

That are according to the Respondent only accommodated at the maximum securitypenitentiary facility attached to the prison in the city Sofia, the Sofia Central at located at

21 General Stoletov.

That ALL non-Bulgarian citizens convicted of crimes in the Republic of Bulgaria are also

isolated from all Bulgarian citizens and housed only in the 10th Prisoner group of the

maximum security penitentiary facility attached to the prison in the city Sofia at located at

21 General Stoletov where they are fed separately, exercised separately and work separately.

What Is Not A Subject, A Legal Controversy or Fact in Dispute Before this Court?

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

9/22


The Applicant, after having heard the opening statements made on the Record by the legal

representative for the Respondent and the Supreme Administrative Prosecutors Office and

after familiarizing himself with a number of administrative cases having similar complaintsdefended by equally as incompetent and legally naive applicants, finds it prudent to clarify to

this Court what is not being legally challenged [see inter alia Supreme Administrative Court

case 566/2004 Haralampinev Kolarov ( ) v.Ministry for Justice/ORDER LC-4-277/02 RULING 6415 issued on 2004.07.07

by the 3 Member Membership of the Fifth Division Judge ZaharinkaTodorova ( ) Reporting for the court]. The reason for this isthat there appears some confusion on what it is the Applicant claims and is asking for from

this court.

Not a Subject Matter of this Complaint

The Whole of ORDER LC 4-277/2001The present legal controversy raised by this Applicant does not have as its subject matter a

challenge as to the lawfulness of the whole of ORDER LC 4-277/2001.

The complaint of the Applicant KAPOUSTIN concerns only item 4 of ORDER LC 4-

277/2002 and then only those specific provisions, words or phrases found there and identified

by the Applicant as contravening tangible provisions of national law and incompatible with

the legislated purpose of theLaw for the Execution of Punishments inter alia, the instructionsissued by the Respondent for the forced isolation of the Applicant and all non-Bulgarian

citizens not only from all members of Bulgarian society but also from all opportunities

afforded to members of Bulgarian society in law and at places of work, housing, education,

religion and finally a right to liberty.Not Part of the Present Legal Controversy

Issuing of ORDER LC 4-277/2002

The Applicant has not raised a challenge and considers there to be no legal controversy over

the right and exclusive jurisdiction of Bulgarias Minister for Justice to issue ORDER LC 4-

277/2002 or others like it.The Applicant acknowledges the issuing of such an ORDER to be

within the constitutional and legislated competence of Bulgarias Minister for Justice. Who,

according to article 15 of the Law for the Execution of Punishments has the positive legal dutyas Bulgarias Minister for Justice to ex officio specify what penitentiary facilities are to

accommodate those groups of prisoners having the legal criterion as defined in articles 12,

12a and 12c of the Law for the Execution of Punishments.

Housing of Indigents and non-Resident Aliens at a Prison in Sofia

As a result of these constitutional and legislative powers there can be no legal controversy on

Bulgarias Minister for Justice decreeing that any prisoner, Bulgaria or non Bulgarian citizen

and having no permanent residence in the Republic of Bulgaria, is be remanded to a

penitentiary facility attached to a prison in the city of Sofia. However, and as a point of law,

the Court is requested to turn its close attention to the national law requiring according to

article 8a(2) Law for the Execution of Punishments that there be attached to each prison apenitentiary facility of the light [open], medium [transitional] and maximum security [closed]

types. These are three (3) very different and distinct types of facilities that according to the

same national law article 8a(3) of the Law for the Execution of Punishments are legislated into

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

10/22


existence by Bulgarias parliament for the express purpose of creating very different physical

security, living conditions, reforming and psychological impact on not only the prisoner but

also on his family. Furthermore, the court is requested to turn its attention to a point of fact,that there are 3 penitentiary facilities attached to the prison in the city of Sofia, these are the

minimum security penitentiary facility at Kazichen, the medium security penitentiary facility

at Kremekovski and the maximum security penitentiary facility at Sofia Central Prison. Of

these the one designated to house only repeat offenders and whose prison population is

prohibited by item 7(2) of ORDER LC 4-277/2002 to be more than 5% first time

offenders is the maximum security penitentiary facility at Sofia Central Prison. It now a

notorious public fact that the Sofia Central Prison is the harshest and most corrupt prison in

Bulgaria. Living conditions here are intentionally hard and according to article 12a(1) of the

Law on the Execution of Punishment intended only for criminals who refuse to be

rehabilitated and so need to be isolated at a maximum security penitentiary facility [closed

type]. The Applicant and 100 of the 104 non-Bulgarian citizens isolated at the Sofia CentralPenitentiary are all first time offenders.

Internal Order of For Housing Assignment of A Prisoner

Finally, the present controversy is not a legal challenge as to the lawfulness of an internal order

[ ] issued by an official ofthe Respondent for the movement of the Applicant or an other prisoner from one penitentiary

facility to the other and therefore ultra vires the competence of Supreme AdministrativeCourt.See again the citation Supreme Administrative Court RULING 6415/2004.07.07.where Reporting Madam Justice Saharinka Todorov [ ] writes;

,

,

. -

,

"

". , ,

, ,

,

- " ".

The Applicant does not challenge the 1998 order for his relocation from arrest at the National

Investigative Service maximum security arrest facilities at G.M. Dimitrov where he was keep

in solitary confinement for the better part of 2 years to the maximum security penitentiaryfacilities at the Sofia Central Prison where he was keep in an isolation cell for the next 6

months. an additional. Such complaints not within the jurisdiction of this court.

Law - Controversy Over Legal Obligations of the Respondent

That prison officials of the Respondent are not under any legally binding obligation to allow

prisoners who are not citizens of Bulgaria to have access to the provisions of law found in

article 12a and articles 44(2)(3) and (4) and articles 65, 66, 66a, 66b, 68 and 69 and 74(1)

items f, g, h and i of the Law on the Execution of Punishments as is legally required and under

the same conditions as citizens of Bulgaria.

That the prison commissions formed under article 17 of the Law for the Execution ofPunishments are not under any legal binding obligation to allow prisoners who are not citizens

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

11/22


of Bulgaria to have access to a judicial procedure for reviewing their candidacy for possible

conditional early release under the same conditions as prisoners who are citizens of Bulgaria.

That prison commissions formed according to under article 17 of the Law for the Execution ofPunishments are not independent of and not legally answerable to the Respondent or to any

judicial or administrative oversight body.

That the Respondent makes no distinction according to prior criminal record when are made

That, according to other data, there are cated The abovecited laws and item 4 of ORDER LC4-277/2002 have no provision creating a positive legal duty requiring Bulgarias MainDirectorate for the Execution of Punishments and the administration of the prison in Sofia to

only accommodate at the maximum security penitentiary facilities attached to the prison in

Sofia all those prisoners having no permanent residence in Bulgaria [homeless],notwithstanding their status established according to the criterion of only.

Furthermore, the abovecited laws and item 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/2002 have no provision

creating a legal negative restriction prohibiting Bulgarias Main Directorate for the Execution

of Punishments and the administration of the prison in Sofia from accommodating those

prisoners having no permanent residence in Bulgaria [homeless] in the light to medium

security penitentiary facilities attached to the prison in the city of Sofia.

However, the Court is requested to pay close attention to the fact that there are three (3) very

different types of penitentiary facilities attached to the Sofia prison and that the text found in

item 4 of ORDER LC 4-277/2001 persons who are not citizens of Bulgaria suffer the term

of their imprisonment at a prison in the city of Sofia [, . see former deputy Minister

Mario Dimitrov Ministry for Justice Letter 94-M-147 dated 13.09.2004] does not

have aprovision specifying or imposing any negative restriction atwhich of the three (3)

facilities [Kazichen, Kremekovski and Sofia Central] non-Bulgarians may or may not be

accommodated. Or, more specifically, there is no provision in item 4 of ORDER LC 4-

277/2001 ordering ALL non-Bulgarian citizens to be housed ONLY at the maximum

security penitentiary facilities for recidivists as attached to the Sofia prison and designed as the

CENTRAL PRISON [address 21 General Stoletov Sofia].

What are the Legal Controversies and Challenges Brought by the Applicant

UnlawfulnessThe Applicant asserts that text provision of it is unlaw Indirect Discrimination

Law

Bulgarias Constitution, its numerous international treaties and the new Law for Protection

Against Discrimination each have very clear provisions creating negative restrictions against

the practice of any form of discrimination where rights or obligations are determined or

created solely according to criteria of ethnic or nation origins, citizenship and property,

public or legal status. Legislated exceptions are permitted and found only in cases necessary

for the protecting of the rights of others. But limitations imposed on right derogation of a

certain right never to the detriment of the rights of another group [inter alia non-smokers

rights v. smokers rights, the right of access for the physically handicapped].

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

12/22


The Bulgarias Constitution and several national laws, contain tangible legal provisions

creating a positive legal duty requiring Bulgarian Public [Correction] Officials to observe, ex

officio, and under penalty of law, all national laws exactly as they are written and to report tothe competent Bulgarian investigative and disciplinary authorities any published orunpublished order issued to them by a Public [Prison] Official of higher office if the a

provision of the order contravenes a tangible legal provision of Bulgarian national law and its

implementation would be incompatible with the purpose of a law [Law for the Execution of

Punishments] and would cause metal, physical or property injury or create undue or

unnecessary hardship or distress the person whose legal or civil rights are being derogated,

denied or abused as a result of a specific provision or order.

The Bulgarias Constitution and its Criminal Code do not poses any provision creating a

separate legal status or separate rights or obligations for non-Bulgarian citizens convicted for

the commission of a crime in Bulgaria. Accordingly non-Bulgarian convicts and Bulgarian

convicts are to have the same rights, protections, opportunities and obligations as defined intheLaw for Execution of Punishments and other relevant national law.

Article 70 of Bulgarias Criminal Code has no legal provision setting a financial or nationalitycriterion necessary for the determining of a candidate for conditional early release. There is no

legal provision for the collection of civil or administrative debts by officials of the prosecution

or prison officials of the Respondent Ministry for Justice before allowing a convict to

candidate for parole. Subjective criteria inter alia conduct of the convict, attitude to work,

continued threat to society and if the remaining term of imprisonment speaks to the nature of

the crime are to be determined solely during an open and adversarial proceeding before a court

law having competent jurisdiction.

The Sofia Prison Warden is an appointee of the Minister for Justice deriving his plenary

powers from a power of attorney issued by the Minister for Justice.

According toArticle 17 of the Law for the Execution of Punishments, the Sofia Prison Wardenforms twice monthly a collective administrative body known as the Commission and whose

voting members are subject to the orders and supervision of the Respondent. The Bulgarias

Constitution does not endow this Commission or any of its members with the power to

interpret criminal sentences or law, its function solely administrative.

According to Article 120 the Constitution

Only Article 12g of Bulgarias Law for the Execution of Punishments [.12.

(,,.103 2004 .) , ,

, ,

.] the only provision of Bulgarian national law making a reference to non-

Bulgarian citizens. The provision permits Bulgarias Minister for Justice to identify the

location of three distinct types of facilities [prison, correctional home and general hostels]

attached to a penitentiary a particular facility are to accommodate non-Bulgarian citizens

according to Art. 12a of the same law [Law for the Execution of Punishments]. house are to

prisons , distinction as to

The incarceration of all first time non-Bulgarian [foreign] citizens only in a Bulgarian

maximum security penitentiary facilitywhenconvicted to prison terms in Bulgaria is not a

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

13/22


legislated part of any provision found in the Bulgarian Criminal Code orLaw for the

Execution of Punishments.

Therefore, any psychological torment, physical or other forms of distress and hardshipinherent to incarceration in a Bulgarian maximum security prison are not incidental

[secondary consequences] to the imposing of a lawful criminal sanction [see Bulgarian

Criminal Code] on a first time non-Bulgarian offender [foreign citizen] and therefore cannot

be justified in the absence of a national law or in individual cases a criminal sentence

explicitly imposing such conditions.

It is well documented [seeBulgarian Helsinki Report 2002 and European Commission]that foreign citizens convicted for crimes committed in Bulgaria are treated as illegal

aliens equal in rank to terrorists or traitors against the Republic of Bulgaria [ see

Terrorists and Tourists Provisionart. 20 ORDINANCE 4 issued on 29.03.2001 by

the Respondent Minister for Justice RB, State Gazette issue 35 06.04.2001] and as aresult suffer greater direct and indirect discrimination within Bulgarias correctioninstitutions to the point of their almost complete elimination from housing, employment

and educational opportunities, and granted grossly inadequate access to healthcare and

legal assistance or competent translators while in arrest and prison.

The Applicant asserts in his complaint that from 1991 the Ministry for Justice for the

Republic of Bulgaria has responded with gross indifference towards the failure of

prison officials to observe the equal legal rights of imprisoned non-Bulgarian citizens

and has ignored completely the inherent humanitarian concerns associated with an

imprisonment that as a practical matter will deny to non-Bulgarian citizens regular

contact with their families and no contact at all with the society or culture they

ultimately must return to. When issuing specific instructions in item 4 of ORDER LC4-277/2001 ordering that non-Bulgarians be isolated from Bulgarians, the Respondenthas attributed a lesser legal and human status to those men and woman who by

accident of birth happen not to be Bulgarian citizens.

Indoingso, the Respondent has clearly contravened numerous tangible provisions of

Bulgarias national laws and its international treaties. It unlawful to attributing a lesser

status to those non-Bulgarian citizens who are against their will and that of their home

states are required by the Prosecutors General for R.B to serve the full term of their

criminal sentences within a Bulgarian correctional institution [see inter alia Letter

12687/2000 issued on 19.03.2004 by the Prosecutors General for the Republic of

Bulgaria through the Respondent Ministry for Justice Bulgaria to the Ministry forJustice for Canada rejection of Government of Canada transfer prisoner transfer request

and Letter 16992/2004.VI issued on 20.07.2004 by the Supreme Cassation

Prosecutors Office on Polish government request for prisoner transfer and RULING

7752/2003/184424/31.08.205 for ending liquidation proceedings issued by the Agency

for State Takings R.B.]

Therefore, the present legal controversy must test the lawfulness of those specific

instructions found in [see item 4 ORDER LC 4-277/02] or attributed to arising from

ORDER LC 4-244/2001 [seeLetter 10691/04 from Supreme Cassation Prosecutor

K. Vulcheva the Respondents ORDER LC 4-277/2001 and page 7 Information

Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with theFinancial Support of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

14/22


for Foreign Citizens] and directly or indirectly creating distinctly different and visiblyunequal legal and human rights for a non-Bulgaria and equally visible fewer material

[financial] obligations or legal and human rights concerns of the Respondent towards men andwomen who are not Bulgarian.

The present legal controversy is henceforth a constitutional question requiring the Supreme

Administrative Court for the Republic of Bulgaria to establish the Respondents observance of

an important legal principle and fundamental civil right found in Article 62 of theConstitution for the Republic of Bulgaria and enshrining the words that everyone shall be

equal before the law. This legal controversy can only properly be resolved by this Courts

application of tangible and specific legal provisions of the Constitution for the Republic of

Bulgaria and Bulgarias international treaties to not only the written instructions found in

item 4 ORDER LC 4-277/2001 but also the direct or indirect negative consequences proven

to be a result thereof. The important question before this Court concerns the Respondents

application and observance of these tangible legal principles and the legal, financial andethical obligations of the Respondent to respect the equal rights of non-Bulgarian offenders

[foreign citizens] to enjoying the protections and opportunities afforded prisoners under

Bulgarias national laws and its treaties.

Unsettled and yet to be determined questions of fact are if the forced isolation ofALL

foreign citizens in a maximum security prison environment is a security measure

compatible with Bulgarias Law for the Execution of Punishments and somehow theRespondent can justify so extreme a measure by some legitimate security concerns or

other needs of the Respondent requiring the isolation of ALL non-Bulgarian citizens

and denying [education, gainful employment at minimum wage both on and off prison

grounds, reduction in the term of their sentence, unsupervised leaves to maintain social

contact with their family and conditional early release or probation under the same

conditions as Bulgarian citizens] or derogating from other legal rights or opportunities

provided for in Bulgarias national laws and equally available to non-Bulgarians.

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

15/22


Clarifications of Complaints Subject Matter

The Applicant more accurately defines the Complaints subject matter to be against those

instructions [unlawful and discriminatory] found item 4 Ministry for Justice ORDER LC -4-277/2001 and other legally offensive provisions found therein or as may otherwise be

published or unpublished and issued by the Respondent Ministry for Justice for determining

different rights or obligations and placing special limitation on existing civil or legal rights

solely according to the criteria of non-Bulgarian nationality [citizenship] or according to the

financial status of a foreign citizen [inter alia legal opportunities under article 70 CC are

determined by an offenders nationality and his financial liquidity].

The Applicant complains against item 4 of Ministry for Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2001

and the legally offensive provision instructing officials of the Respondent to place thosepersons in

" [see attached Letter 8319/16.09.2004 from Main

Director Execution of Punishments Director Peter Vassilev];

The also complains against the legally offensive provision or clause in Ministry for Justice

ORDER LC -4 -277/2001 with words instructing officials of the Respondent at the Sofia

prison that persons ,

." [see again Letter 10691/04 from SupremeCassation Prosecutor K. Vulcheva]

The Applicant also complaints against the legally offensive provision or clause in Ministry for

Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2001 announced by the respondent on page 7 of the

Information Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia Prison

Elaborated with the Financial Support of the European Initiative for Democracy and HumanRights Sofia 2003 prepared and distributed by the Respondent Ministry for Justice andinforming non-Bulgarian offenders [foreign citizens] that Bulgarian national law [article 70

CC] determining conditional early release will not be apply for those [non-Bulgarian

citizens] offenders who have unpaid debts [see againInformation Brochure on the Rights

and Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with the Financial Support of theEuropean Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003 ].

Proceeding on the above and according to the legal maxim non jus ex regula, sed

regula ex jure that the law does not arise from the rule, but the rule from the

law, the Applicant alters the legal controversy of his original Complaint

The Applicants complaints now revolve around two controversies (1) item 4 ofMinistry for

Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2002 where the Respondent has provided instructions for the

different treatment and application of Bulgarian nationals law to non-Bulgarian offenders

[foreign citizens] to accommodated in Bulgarian prisons, and (2) the interpretation and

application by Sofia Prison officials ofMinistry for Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2002, and

the resulting policy of refusing to observe their ex officio remedial obligations to non-

Bulgarians as required according to what are otherwise imperative legal provisions found

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

16/22


under the Law for the Execution of Punishments [see again Letter 10691/04 from

Supreme Cassation Prosecutor K. Vulcheva.

As a result, the Applicant insists that the instructions stipulated in item 4 ofORDER LC -4-277/2002, the interpretation of those instructions by officials of the Respondent and thenotification on page 7 of theInformation Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners

in the Sofia Prison have each contravened tangible legal provisions of the Constitutionfor the Republic of Bulgaria [Articles 6, 262, 531, 571, 58and 60(1)] and numerous provisions of Bulgarias international treaties [see inter alia, Articles 3 and 14, European Convention on Human Rights; Articles 3, 7, 20 and 26 International

Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (U.N.T.S. No. 14668, vol 999 (1976), p. 171.);

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment, G.A. res. 39/46 signed by Bulgaria 10 Jun 1986 16 Dec 1986;; Article 1,

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture andOther Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as Adopted by General

Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975;.] and are also incompatible with

the legislated purposes ofarticles 2(2), 8(2), 12a, 12g and 14(4), Bulgarias Law forthe Execution of Punishmentand articles 4(1) and 4(3), BulgariasLaw for Protection

against Discrimination.

Furthermore, the Constitution and Bulgarian national law regulating the issuance of

administrative orders, decrees or ordinances demands that the Respondent Ministry for

Justice for the Republic of Bulgaria or the person appointed by him, must ex officio and

ex jure before issuing any administrative act or order, insure its compliance with the

Constitution for the Republic of Bulgaria, and those normative acts of a higher powerand Bulgarian national laws.

Clearly that is not the case here.

JUDGMENT SOUGHT

Accordingly, the Applicants Petition to this Court is for it to apply article 12 items 3 and 4 of

the Law for the Supreme Administrative Courtand immediately sentence the Respondent to;

1. Remove the legally offensive and unlawful written instructions found in item 4 of

ORDER LC -4 -277/2002, the forced isolation at a maximum security prison solely

according only to the criteria of an offenders [prisoners] nationality cannot be legallyjustified and the Respondent to be ORDERED to immediately house non-Bulgarian

citizens according to the demands of Bulgarian national law and at any of the three

different accommodations of open, transition and half-open facilities presently attached to

the Sofia prison and according to their individual term of imprisonment [Art. 12a and Art.

12g Law for the Execution of Punishments] and their prior criminal record [Art. 12 Law

for the Execution of Punishments];

2. End Sofia prison administration practices arising for a legally wrong interpretation ofitem4 of ORDER LC -4 -277/2002, the isolating of non-Bulgarian citizens from

opportunities in education, full-time supervised [guarded] and unsupervised

[unguarded] employment at minimum wage on or off prison grounds and socialcontacts with their families through unsupervised leaves cannot be legally justified

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

17/22


solely according to the criteria of an offenders [prisoners] nationality. The Respondent

must be ORDERED to immediately allow non-Bulgarian citizens equal opportunity to

access education, full time employment and social contact with family members under thesame conditions as Bulgarian citizens have at the same Bulgarian prison;

3. Remove the legally offensive and unlawful criteria established by the Respondent on

page 7 ofthe Information Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners in the

Sofia Prison, the determining of different rights or opportunities in national criminal

law cannot be legally justified solely according to an offenders [prisoners] non-

Bulgarian nationality or his property and income status or that of his family. The

Respondent must be ORDERED to instruct officials at the Sofia Prison to end their

unlawful and psychologically distressing and inhumane practice of attempting to

coerce payment of financial obligations from non-Bulgarian offenders [prisoners] or

their families by determining their candidacy for a possible reduction in the term of

their imprisonment [see art. 17 Law for the Execution of Punishments in conj. withformal criteria as established in art. 701 CCconditional early release] solely according

to their financial status or their familys ability to pay off debts inter aliafines, or civil

or administrative financial obligations to Bulgarian citizens or the State.

Irrefutable Facts

There can be no factual dispute over Applicant claims that according to of item 4 ORDER LC

4-277/02 the Respondent Ministry for Justice has issued instructions ordering that;

1. All first time and repeat non-Bulgarian criminal offenders [foreign citizens] be placedunder severe physical coercion by their incarcerations in Bulgaria only at the maximum

security penitentiary facility attached to the Sofia prison;

2. While incarcerated they are to be subjected to isolation and the mental degradation and

unnecessary psychological torment associated with being isolated from all the others;

There can be no factual dispute over Applicant claims that a vicarious affect of item 4ORDER LC 4-277/02 is to incite senior officials at the Main Directorate for the Execution of

Punishments and Sofia prison officials of the Respondent Ministry for Justice to issue

instructions ordering that;

3. Non-Bulgarian citizens are to be denied access to educational opportunities, familycontacts through regular unsupervised leaves and are not to be allowed supervised

[guarded] or unsupervised [unguarded] employment off prison grounds;

4. Non-Bulgarian citizens with no prior criminal record and good behaviorbut insufficient

property or income to settle contractual or other debts are not to be allowed access to

an administrative [see againart. 17 Law for the Execution of Punishments] or judicial

[see art. 415(1) item 2 CCP] procedure for reviewing of their continued imprisonment

beyond the maximum half term as envisioned in criminal law [art. 701 CC];

Discussion

The Controversy

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

18/22


There can be little debate that the nationality criteria appearing as a provision of item 4

in Ministry for Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2001 is discriminatory in nature.

However, the present legal controversy and complaint of the Applicant does not concernthe Respondents discretionary legal right to issue instructions on the housing of non-

Bulgarian citizens [seeArt. 12g Law for the Execution of Punishments] at a prison in Sofia ifthey have no legal residence in the Republic of Bulgaria.

Therefore, the legal controversy to be discussed by this tribunal must center upon the

unlawfulness of that part of this provision having as its stated purpose and physical objective

the confining all non-Bulgarian citizens only to maximum security penitentiary facilities

in the Republic of Bulgaria and isolating them from everyone else.

The detritus negative physical and psychological affects resulting from years of such isolation

cannot be underestimated as a consequence or avoided as a consideration when this Court

reviews the constitutional question of if this provision of ORDER LC 4-244/01 iscompatible with the legislated and stated remedial intent of theLaw for the Execution of

Punishments [see articles 2(2), 8(2), 12a, 12g and 14(4), Bulgarias Law for the

Execution of Punishment].

The Applicants complaint asserting that the decision by officials at the Main Directorate for

the Execution of Punishments to confine non-Bulgarian citizens only to the maximum security

penitentiary facilities attached to the Sofia prison and isolating them there cannot be

legitimized by the Respondent as having any lawful purpose.

No Lawfully Purpose

At no time has the Respondent Ministry for Justice invoked any particular securityreasons requiring it to isolate non-Bulgarian first time offenders [foreign citizens] in a

Bulgarian maximum security prison.

The Respondent has at no time mentioned why it was not possible to revise the

accommodations of non-Bulgarian [foreign] prisoners so as to satisfy the requirements

of law [see articles 12a and 12g Law for the Execution of Punishments] and providethem with adequate possibilities for family contact and a sensible occupation or

education both on and off prison grounds during the term of imprisonment.

Furthermore, the Respondents instructions for isolation of foreign citizens only in

maximum security penitentiaries cannot be legitimized as a reasonable limitation

demonstrably necessitated by the fact that the incarceration concerns a non-Bulgariancitizen and not a Bulgarian citizen.

The Ministry for Justice for the Republic of Bulgaria knows only to well that according

to the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners all prisoners retain their humanand civil rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, and, where the Bulgaria State is a party, the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights and its Optional Protocol.

Non-Bulgarian offenders [foreign citizens] must be given opportunities and rights equal

to their Bulgarian counterparts as is setout in Bulgarias national laws.

Therefore, the Respondent Ministry for Justice cannot lawfully or reasonable justifysubjecting an entire and distinct group of prisoners to unnecessary hardships and

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

19/22


avoidable constraints during the term of their incarceration and solely on account of

their non-Bulgarian citizenship, [see 1992, explanatory notes United Nations Human

Rights Committee, [N]ot only may persons deprived of their liberty not be subjectedto [torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment]but

neither may they be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; respect for the dignity of such persons must be

guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons. Persons deprived of

their liberty enjoy all the rights set forth in the [ICCPR], subject to the restrictions thatare unavoidable in a closed environment].

Explanations offered by senior officials and former Deputy Minister Mario Dimitrov,

that;

, , , . [see former

deputy Minister Mario Dimitrov Ministry for Justice Letter 94-M-147 dated13.09.2004] and therefore isolation in a maximum security prison attached to the Sofia

prison is for the benefit of foreign citizens is not only lame but legally and factually

unsupportable.

The explanations offered by Sofia prison officials to consular officials of the

Governments of Canada, the United States and states of the European Union that the

placing of their nationals in a maximum security penitentiary is a consequence of

national law is, as we have seen, legally unsupported. No such Bulgarian national law

exists and only it item 4 Ministry for Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2001 that makes a

distinction between the rights of non-Bulgarian and Bulgarian prisoners.

Attempts by Sofia prison officials to excuse the housing of foreign citizens only in

maximum security facilities as being necessitated by the government of Bulgarias

difficult financial circumstances and that therefore is no other option for the

Respondent except to incarcerate them [foreign citizens] exclusively in a maximum

security prison facility is legally inadmissible [see Mukong v. Cameroon (No.

458/1991) (August 10, 1994), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991. Minimumrequirements regarding floor space, sanitary facilities, provision of food, etc., must be

observed, "even if economic or budgetary considerations may make compliance with

these obligations difficult") and not true since Bulgarian citizens are routinely

distributed between the other two penitentiary facilities connected to the Sofia prison

[see Sofia prison COMMISSION PROTOCOLS (Minutes) from August 2004 toOctober 2005, transfers].

According to Letter 4502 issued in on 30.05.2005 by the Main Directorate for the

Execution of Punishmentto the Respondent Ministry for Justice, there is no administrative

ACT or ORDER creating a financial criteria applying to non-Bulgarian citizens and requiring

them to make payments of money as a precondition to candidate for conditional early release

according to Bulgarias criminal or correctional law [see Art. 17 , Art. 701 CC and Art.

415]. However, the credibility of this letter and its claim is refuted by the evidence of that

written announcement made in 2003 by the Respondent found on page 7 of the InformationBrochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with the

Financial Support of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003.This official publication by the Respondent is unambiguously and setouts out in no uncertain

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

20/22


terms that the settling of fines or civil debt by a foreign citizen is for the Respondent a

condition sine qua non for any non-Bulgarian seeking to become a candidate for parole. A

conclusion supported by the fact of the 37 and still growing number of non-Bulgarian citizensthat the Respondent routinely denies any possibility to candidate for an administrative review

of their possible early release [seeList, Foreign Prisoners Who As of 12.31.2005 FormallySatisfying Art. 701 CC and Sofia Prison COMMISSION PROTOCOLS (Minutes) from08.2004 to 10.2005]

Most certainly the provisions of article 70(1) of the Bulgarian CC most contains no criteria

[financial] as a conditional to early release [parole], therefore the Respondent creating a

financial criterion [see again page 7 of the Information Brochure on the Rights and

Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with the Financial Support of theEuropean Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Sofia 2003] and applying this to only

non-Bulgarian citizens [offenders] is not only unlawful but also a malfeasance and representsa form of coercion used to threat. Foreign citizens be assured by Sofia prison officials of the

Respondent that the will remain in prison to the full term of their criminal sentence is their

families cannot pay their debts in Bulgaria. And with this coercion comes the psychological

distress ofwatching others go free while less financial fortunate remain in prison.

In Bulgaria the Respondent required that foreign citizens buy their freedom.

Is it unlawful for the Respondent to determine different forms of treatment under

Bulgarian national laws, or to derogate from a civil or legal rights according to the

criteria of a criminal offenders race, nationality or financial status and to impose on

him treatment inconsistent with Bulgarian national law or the Standard Minimum Rulesfor the Treatment of Prisoners? Among other things the imprisonment and isolation ofnon-Bulgarian only in a maximum security penitentiary facility, refusing non-

Bulgarians any possibility for unsupervised family contact or leaves, refusing to give

non-Bulgarians access to remedial education and work programs and the use of

psychological torment and legal coercion by Sofia prison official who attempt to collect

financial obligations from non-Bulgarian citizens by relying on the Respondents

administrative powers according to article 17 and 17a of the Law for the Executions of

Punishments.

There is only one object and impartial reply, no and therefore all written and unwrittenprovisions of Ministry for Justice ORDER LC -4 -277/2001 that create a different a

legal status and different obligations for foreign offenders is by its very natureunlawful. It must be amended or revoked by this Court and the isolation of foreign

offenders immediately ended and their equal right to protections and opportunities

under the Law for the Execution of Punishments and other Bulgarian national laws

restored

The Applicant reserves his right to provide additional argument and evidence,

Submitted 14.03.2006.

Michael Kapoustin

Exhibits Provided During Hearing on 14.02.2006 and Accepted Into Evidence

1. Letter 8319/16.09.2004 issuer Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments. AuthorDirector Peter Vassilev. Citation of item 4 of Respondent ORDER LC 4277/2002. Respondent

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

21/22


instructions to issuer for isolation of all foreigners at Sofia maximum security penitentiary

facility notwithstanding the term of imprisonment, prior criminal record or nature of the

crime [against the person or against property or commercial];

2. Letter 10691/04.VII/23.02.2006 issuer the Supreme Cassation Prosecutors Office. AuthorProsecutor Vulcheva. Citation of Letter 725/20.02.2006 and Respondent ORDER LC 4-

277/02. Officials for the Respondent Sofia Central Prison inform Prosecutor Vulcheva that

education and other remedial programs are by ORDER of the Respondent, not to be

offered to non-Bulgarian offenders;

3. Letter 94-M-147/13.09.2004, issuer Ministry for Justice. Author former Deputy MinisterMario Dimitrov. Citation of item 4 of Respondent ORDER LC 4-277/2002. Respondent

justifies isolation of all foreigners at maximum security penitentiary facility of Sofia as being

for the benefit of foreign consulsand for access to translators;

4. 12.31.2005/List of 47 from 104 foreign citizens as independently prepared by the Applicant.Identifies those European and other foreign nationals having less than a 5 year term remaining

to their criminal sentence and who according to Article 12a of the Law for the Execution ofPunishments should be but on the grounds of item 4 Respondent ORDER LC 4-277 are nottransferred to the light security penitentiary facilities of the transition type attached to the

Sofia prison and as is imperative according to Bulgaria national law;

5. Letter 3179/18.04.2005, issuer Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments. AuthorDirector of the Department, no name. Citation of item 4 of Respondent ORDER LC 4-277/02.

Grounds forrefusing transfer of non-Bulgarian citizen with less than 5 year sentence to a

light security [transitional] penitentiary facility attached to the Sofia prison;

6. Letter 1006/08/11/2004, issuer Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments. AuthorDeputy Director, no name. Citation of item 4 of Respondent ORDER LC 4-277/02. Grounds for

refusing transfer of non-Bulgarian citizen with less than 5 year sentence to a light security

[transitional] penitentiary facility attached to the Sofia prison;

7. 12.31.2005/List of 37 from 104 foreign citizens as independently prepared by the Applicant.Identifies those European and other foreign nationals having formally satisfied all the legal

and subjective [good behavior] requirements for parole according to Art. 70(1) of Bulgarian

Criminal Code. Respondent appointed Sofia Prison Warden Dimitar Raichev determines

candidacy for parole according to the financial status of each non-Bulgarian citizen and

determines access to anadministrative or judicial reviewof parole available only to those

non-Bulgarians with demonstrated financial liquidity;

19313969.doc

8/14/2019 2006.03.29 Addendum MARIAN

22/22


8. Letter 4502/30.05.2005. Issuer Main Directorate for the Execution of Punishments. AuthorDirector Peter Vassilev to the Respondent Minister for Justice. Citation of Bulgarian Criminal

Code [Art. 70(1) CC] and claim before the Respondent that there is no ordinance or order

that limits the possibilities of that law. It the court that determines the right for parole. Theofficial statement in this letter contracted by official publications distributed by the

Respondent and other official documents given into evidence.

Exhibits Provided Prior to Hearing on 14.02.2006 and Accepted into Evidence;

9. Page 7 of the Information Brochure on the Rights and Obligations of Prisoners in the Sofia PrisonElaborated with the Financial Support of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human RightsSofia 2003 and where it writes conditional early release [parole] will not be apply for those [non-Bulgarian citizens] who have unpaid debts. Court requested from Respondent the Bulgarian text and

author of the Order having made an addendum to Art. 70(1) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code establishing

a financial and nationality criterion as an elementsine qua non for a non-Bulgarian citizen to candidate

for parole.

10. Letter Dated 09.08.2002 issuer Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. Author Mr. Stanimir Petrovconfirming completion of an investigation into the abuse of rights of foreign person in places

of detention [prison] with results to be published in September 2002.

11. Letter Dated 12.07.2004 issuer Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. Author Ms. Mila Boyanova.Confirming discrimination against non-Bulgarian citizens and they have a legal status

unequal to that of Bulgarian citizens in places of detention [prisons].

Evidentiary Petitions Denied

12. Request for invitation of Bulgarian Helsinki Committee as an interested 3 rd party.

Discovery Requests Unsatisfied

13. Respondent unable to produce copy of original letter authored by Deputy Minister for Justice DimitarBangalov and forwarded, via the Embassy for the Republic of Bulgaria to Canada in November 2005addressed to the wife of the Applicant Tracy Coburn Kapoustin and advising her that according to

Bulgarian national law as a foreign citizen I was not eligible for parole.

Additional Materials Filed with this Petition

14.

2006.03.29 addendum marian

Documents