You are on page 1of 45

[1] Treatment of the Appplicant

[2] On or about August 1st 1996 the Speaker, was hospitalised at the order
of prison medical staff in Germany and placed on intravenous feeding.

[3] On September 2nd 1996, at the order of the German federal prosecutor,
prison medical staff removed the Speaker's intravenous feeding.
German police officers arrived at the prison and carried the Speaker,
unconscious, to an awaiting vehicle.

[4] After a medical examination at Frankfurt international airport the

Speaker was taken by airport ambulance, then physically carried to an
awaiting Bulgarian Balkan Airlines aircraft. On arrival in Sofia, Bulgaria,
the Speaker was hospitalised by the defendant Bulgaria for an
additional 16 days.

[5] On September 18th 1996 the Speaker was relocated by the defendant
Bulgaria to a solitary confinement facility at a police detention facility in
Sofia, Bulgaria, he remained there alone. The cell was unventilated,
having no natural light. What was available was a 60 Watt yellow
incandescent bulb. The Speaker experiencing his first beatings here.

[6] On or about the end of October, early November, the Speaker was
again relocated to another facility where he was isolated. His cell there
differed little from that of the previous facility except for toilet facilities
and some natural light. The beatings continued, and the Speaker
reported to Canadian authorities having been drugged on more than
one occasion. He remained in isolation here for an additional period of
two (2) years.

[7] The average maximum detention in such facilities is typically six (6)
months. The Speaker continues to hold the defendant's record for the
longest period in solitary confinement at a police arrest facility since
[8] On September 7th 1998 the Speaker was moved by the defendant
Bulgaria to solitary confinement facilities located at the Sofia
Penitentiary where he remained an additional 6 months with intermittent
stays at the prisons infirmary.

[9] This Speaker remains remanded at the Sofia Central Penitentiary

awaiting a final verdict.

A.1.1.Speaker's Arraignment and Trial

The Indictment.
[10] On December 10th 1998 the defendant Bulgaria brought final charges,
having entered an indictment for an embezzlement aided by a fraud.

[11] It was alleged by the defendant Bulgaria that the Speaker had
misappropriated funds he had first defrauded from 4831 individuals. The
alleged subject of the indicted crime, embezzlement, was the same
subject of the preceding crime, the fraud, it being alleged that to get the
funds to be embezzled later the Speaker had to first defraud others of
the funds. Needless to say the Speaker and his attorneys at the time
were completely confused by the indictments legal construction.

[12] The Speaker argued estoppel, contending that since the subject of the
alleged two misappropriations was one and the same property, the act
misappropriation by embezzlement could not be linked to the preceding
act of misappropriation by fraud.

The Trial and Conviction.

[13] On April 16th 1999, three (3) years and three (3) months after his arrest,
the Speaker was arraigned for the first time before a justice of the Sofia
City Court.

[14] The district court allowed bring new elements in the indictment different
from those brought at the time the Speaker was arrested on February
7th 1996 and for which Germany later extradited the Speaker on
September 2nd 1996.

[15] A repeated defence thesis during the Speaker's arraignment was that an
alteration of the extradition elements of the charge violated international
law -the European Convention on Extradition - in the absence of the
extraditing state's - German - consent.

[16] On January 14th 2000, the defendant Bulgaria withdrew the April 16th
1999 indictment and original accusations against the Speaker, raising
instead a new charge, having different circumstantial and factual
elements but the same criminal code qualification, the presiding judge
allowing the new charges.

[17] On March 13th 2001 the Sofia City Court convicted the Speaker of
embezzlement of his companies funds and sentenced him to 23 years
of hard time. The maximum sentence for embezzlement is 30 years.
The only victim of the crime identified by prosecution and the convicting
court was the plaintiffs' wholly owned subsidiary company, "LifeChoice"
incorporated by the plaintiffs and the Speaker in Bulgaria.

The Acquittal.
[18] On August 2nd 2001, on appeal, the Speaker was acquitted of the
charge of embezzlement, the appellate court ruling that the first court
had erred in law and in fact when allowing the new charges and
elements of embezzlement as brought on January 14th 2000.

[19] The Appeal court re-qualified the factual elements as having the
character of a general fraud and convicted the Speaker, sentencing him
to 9 years. The maximum sentence for fraud is 10 years.

Supreme Court of Bulgaria - Protest and Appeal.

[20] On August 20th 2001 the defendant Bulgaria ordered its prosecutor to
protest to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bulgaria that the
appellate court had erred in law and fact when acquitting the Speaker.
The defendant Bulgaria seeking the Supreme Court of Bulgaria to
declare the acquittal invalid, setting aside the appellate decision and
returning the Speaker for a new trial before the first or second instance

[21] On August 22nd 2001 the Speaker appealed his innocence, and the
appeal court having in part erred in law when, inter alia failing to
observe applicable principles of international law on bringing new
elements to a charge of fraud different from those for which the Speaker
had been extradited. Having also erred in fact when finding, inter alia,
that the Speaker had personally effected, at different times and places,
each of the alleged misrepresentations, through intermediaries, and
thereby having alone defrauded more than 2,500 individuals.

[22] As of October 7, 2001 six (6) years and five (5) months have passed
since the defendant Bulgaria acted on the July 7th 1995 request of the
Crown to prosecute the Speaker, its criminal investigation. Five (5)
years and nine (9) months have passes since the Speaker's arrest.

[23] As of the moment of this memorandum there is no final verdict or

determination on what charges the Speaker will ultimately be sentenced
on, or retried, by the defendant Bulgaria. Such an indeterminate judicial
state of an accused is consistent with the practice of the defendant

Practices of the Defendant Bulgaria Existing In Aggravation of

the Claims.

Conditions In The Republic of Bulgaria


[24] As the Court may recall the Speaker began his detention in Bulgaria on
2nd September 1996.
[25] The conditions in Bulgaria and the treatment the Speaker could expect
and did later encounter were set out in 1996 by USAID [see:] it reported:

[2] "The Government generally respects basic human freedoms, but serious human

rights problems remain. Police are not sufficiently accountable for abuses,

including the beating and practices."

[1] In that same year Amnesty International reported [see: AI Index:EUR

15/07/96 DISTR:SC/CO/GR]:

[3] "Human rights violations persisted in Bulgaria: they include shootings, torture,

beating and all forms of ill-treatment of detainees, sometimes resulting in

death. The rising number and regional distribution of the reported cases

indicate that they are numerous and widespread. Daily accounts of such

incidents reveal a pattern of casual violence and illegal acts by police officers

throughout the country.

[4] "The official statistics on shootings, deaths in custody and complaints of ill

treatment are not made public."

[1] The experiences of this Speaker during his solitary confinement at the
hands of the defendant Bulgaria went unreported. His complaints and
attempts at communicating such complaints severely punished. The AI
(Amnesty International) Report for 1996 goes on to say "Lawyers, non-
government organisations monitoring human rights in Bulgaria as well
we press frequently report incidents of torture and ill-treatment." And:

[5] "The deteriorating human rights situation is further compounded by a pattern of

impunity of law enforcement officers responsible for human rights violations.

International standards require prompt, thorough and impartial investigations

into reports of human rights violations by law enforcement officers. However,

the information on such investigations is seldom made public…..Failure to

bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations is in itself a

violation of international obligations. Furthermore in order to prevent such

human rights violations from reoccurring, the Bulgarian authorities need to

clearly indicate that such conduct is totally unacceptable."

[1] Persistent violations of fundamental civil rights or obligations and

corruption is systemic, and occurred regularly in the context of
continued social and economic difficulties. Inadequate legislative
reforms by successive governments of Bulgaria left intact corrupt state
institutions and an atmosphere of lawlessness heightened by the
numerous reports of the illicit financial gains of former government
nomenklatura, some of whom were and are still active politicians.

[2] This Honourable Court is asked to recall a significant and outstanding

incident involving the 1995 to 1998 co-operation of a Crown servant and
diplomatic agent of Canada [see: above references to defendant Derek
Doornbos] with the Regional Department of Internal Affairs Unit for
Combating Organised Crime [the above referenced Ministry of Interior -
secret services police]. In the 1996 AI wrote:

[6] "In January 1994 a series of gangland killings culminated in an incident in the

Beli Brezi in Sofia in which riot police, reportedly trailing an underground

suspect, shot dead two anti-terror officers by mistake. The killed officers were

allegedly guarding a meeting between government officials and members of the

criminal underworld. In January 1996 [one month prior to the Speakers

arrest] two police officers responsible for the killing were brought to trial, in

which the hearings were held in camera. Their superior officer at the time,

Captain Khristo Savov, later chief of the Regional Department of Internal

Affairs Unit for Combating Organised Crime, and another police officer

were arrested on 26 February 1996 in Sofia on charges of racketeering….

The Ministry of Interior then reportedly initiated an inquiry into possible links

between police and the criminal underworld but there was no information as to

whether it was completed and if so with what results."

[7] [Emphasis and [ ] Added - Mine]

[1] The significance of the foresaid data to the proceedings before the trial
court can be found in the exchanges of data and requests that occurred
during operative calls and meetings of Ministry of Interior agents with
Crown servants.

[2] Faxes were exchanged and reports made by the Crown to agents of the
Ministry of Interior, including the foresaid Captain Savov, and his
associates, in May of 1995. The Crown inevitably assisting them in their
efforts to cause pecuniary and non-pecuniary injury to the plaintiffs, as
well as to extort funds all or part of the funds identified by the Crown to
Captain Savov's Department of Internal Affairs Unit for Combating
Organised Crime.

[3] The situation was summarised by AI as "police officers have traditionally

placed the protection of state interests above universally recognised
rights of individuals" having lead to AI's conclusion that the Bulgarian
judicial system routinely practised a policy that failed to safeguard
fundamental human rights.

[4] AI reported, as this Speaker has documented with his own experiences,
that the defendant Bulgaria regularly refuses to provide proof on
whether complaints against its officials are processed, or to make public
those documents necessary to prove such complaints against the
defendant Bulgaria before foreign courts or international tribunals. Such
conduct has been and continues to be inconsistent with the UN and
European obligations of the Republic of Bulgaria.

[5] AI further reported that year, as this Speaker has insisted to the trial
court, that the defendant Bulgaria does regularly breach the rights of
victims of abuse of official powers (police or judicial). There exist rights,
but no effective remedies to secure those rights in Bulgaria, the
international law principle of a legal remedy against state agencies,
instrumentalities or officials that abuse their powers remains virtually
non-existent before the Bulgarian courts.


[6] In November of 1997, Mr. Peter Stoyanov was elected to President of

the Republic of Bulgaria. Stoyanov is a former attorney and business
associate of this Speaker.

[7] Late in 1994 and the beginning of 1995 Stoyanov was paid $15,000
United States Dollars (USD) by the Speakers British Columbia
company. In exchange for these funds, Stoyanov was to obtain
municipal approval for the Speaker's company to install and operate a
micro-refinery and oil treatment plant near the City of Plovdiv. Stoyanov
took the funds but never provided the services promised, prior to the
Speakers arrest he had been forcefully demanding that Stoyanov return
the funds. The money in question became a public issue during the
Speakers detention and at his trial in 1999.

[8] AI reported that 1997 began much like 1996 with "daily reports of torture
and ill-treatment by police officers" of most criminal suspects, some
leading to death. Racial and religious discrimination was often a
predominate factor among police and investigative officers. Medical
attention was often denied victims when still in custody, or alternatively,
as in the Speaker's case, medical reports were provided that were
consistent with police claims and not the truth [see case: AI "Deaths In
1997: Mincho Sartmachev"]. Quoting AI;

[8] "Ill treatment and beatings in police custody are common in Bulgaria and there

now exists a pattern of almost casual violence which Amnesty International

believes must urgently be addressed….Violence on the part of the police at the

time of detention is also frequent."

[1] Requests for independent medical examinations to verify claims of ill

treatment are, as in the Speaker's case, routinely denied him. All
Canadian consular requests for an examination of the Speaker by a
Canadian doctor were routinely refused by the defendant Bulgaria.

[2] Police and investigator violence are a regular pattern utilised to obtain
information or extract confessions from suspects. Prosecutors and
Judicial officials fail to pursue allegations against police and other
officials responsible to them under law. As a result human rights
violations are committed with impunity from prosecution or discipline.

[3] Bulgarian authorities failed in most cases to pursue those responsible or

adequately investigate reports despite obligations as a state party under
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment and Punishment.

[4] AI expressed deep concern over the failure of the Ministry of Justice
and police to act on complaints, so much so as to suggest to the
government of Bulgaria that it establish a complaints board independent
of these institutions that included the office of the prosecutor and courts.


[5] During March of 1998 the Bulgarian government authorised the release
of a report prepared by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This
report was compiled after the committee had visited the various places
of detention to be found in Bulgaria and concluded that those people
detained there "run a significant risk of being ill treated at the time of
their apprehension and/or while in police custody, and that on occasion
resort may be had to severe ill-treatment or torture".

[6] Of significance to the Speaker is that the report went on to state "that
conditions of detention in the National Investigative Service (NIS)
facilities could be described as inhuman and degrading", prisoner are
held in isolation, often for years and under an "impoverished regime
offering very little human contact". The court may well recall that the
Speaker had been isolated more than two years (1996 to 1999) by the
NIS at facilities described in the European Committee report.

[7] Also during 1998 a United Nations Committee on the Elimination of

Racial Discrimination had expressed alarm at the number of incidents of
violence against members of minority groups.

[8] Jews are an invisible minority in Bulgaria society and Bulgaria Jews
maintain a low profile due to Anti-Semitism that is imbued through out
Bulgarian society, particularly police and prosecutors.

[9] The court may recall that the Speaker is of Jewish ancestry. Should this
Honourable Court have cause to review the offensive and actionable
words complained of as slanders and blasphemous libels, framed in the
tort of defamation, it would become immediately apparent that Anti-
Semitism played a significant part in the way the defendant Bulgaria has
treated the Speaker throughout his 6 years of arrest. There is no
exaggeration to the statement made in 1998 by USAID that "Bulgaria
needs to strengthen rule of law; and do more to protect human and
minority rights….Anti-corruption efforts need to be intensified, and
functioning of the judicial system improved".

[10] During 1999 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

decided to continue monitoring Bulgaria's honouring of its international
obligations and commitments [see below: Part 3 "Law and Enactment
Relied On"], assembly rapporteurs expressed concern to the council
about continued police violence.

[11] In May of 1999 the Chief Prosecutor and the Director of NIS both
acknowledged there had been "serious violations of laws, rights and
freedoms of citizens" that were becoming ever more, rather than less,
frequent in the practice of the Ministry of Interior.

[12] The Court is asked to recall the 1995 agreement of the Crown with the
Ministry of Interior, of the defendant Bulgaria, the Crown having asked
the said defendant to "prosecute for whatever" the Speaker or his
company in Bulgaria.

[13] It is recalled from the AI report of 1996 that the defendant Bulgaria's
interior police was known to be co-operating with, and protecting, high
ranking members of organised crime.

[14] The Ministry of Interior continues its practice of not co-operating in

complaints against its officers or facilities under its control. It may be
remembered that the Ministry of Interior effected all the seizure of
property belonging to the plaintiffs in Bulgaria, and records of their

[15] The Ministry of Interior was responsible for efforts in Bulgaria connected
to the discovery of the whereabouts of funds the Crown had advised the
said ministry of on July 7th 1995 as having been located in the province.

[16] We find from the facts placed before the trial court that the Crown was
actively engaged with members of an agency of the defendant Bulgaria
having been indicted by international community for gross violations of
human and civil rights.

[17] The plaintiffs are alleging before the trial court, in aggravation of their
claims against the defendant Bulgaria and the Crown, that the beating
of the Speaker, and attempts in Canada to extort money from the
plaintiffs are organised by officers of the Internal Affairs Unit for
Combating Organised Crime, Ministry of Interior of the defendant

[18] On February 25th 2000, the United States State Department "1999
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" [see:] wrote:

[9] "The judiciary is independent but suffers from corruption and continues to

struggle with structural and staffing problems.

[10] "Most internal security services are responsible to the Ministry of Interior,

including the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime, the National

Security Service (civilian intelligence), internal security troops, border guards,

and special forces. Although government control over police is improving, it is

still not sufficient to ensure full accountability. The Special Investigative

Service (SIS), reduced in size by a recent reorganisation, is a judicial branch

agency and therefore not under direct government control. Some members of

the police committed serious human rights violations"

[1] The US State Department indicated that, as in the prior years, the
security forces continued to beat suspects and prison inmates. The
Speaker make reference to such fact as it is relevant to his past
treatment and the ever present threats under which he exists.

[2] In 1999 accountability remained practically non-existent and prison

conditions are "harsh, and pre-trial detention is often prolonged", it goes
on to say that the "judiciary is underpaid, understaffed, and has a heavy
case backlog; corruption is a serious problem. The Government
infringed on citizens' privacy rights…Discrimination against the disabled
and religious minorities is a problem."

[3] It can be seen that the defendant Bulgaria's Constitution [see below:
Part 3 "Law and Enactment"] forbids cruel and inhuman treatment or
punishment. Despite this the police, well into the year 2000, commonly
beat criminal suspects and members of minorities.

[4] Such tactics (beatings, drugging and intimidation) had been reported in
previous years as frequently used, as with the Speaker, to extract
information or false testimony. Human rights groups reported that
complaints are rarely received through official channels.

[5] According to reliable USA State Department sources "Human rights

monitors report that they receive many more complaints from persons
who are to intimidated to lodge an official complaint with authorities",
persons deprived of their liberty run significant risks of being mistreated
if complaining.

[6] A Bulgaria Helsinki Committee reported survey Bulgaria's prisons,

finding that "51 percent of interviewed prisoners reported that police
officers used physical force against them during arrest; 53 percent
reported mistreatment at police stations" and seldom are charges
against prison guards investigated, more rarely are they prosecuted..

[7] During 1999 and 2000 conditions in prisons continued to be harsh,

"severely overcrowded", places having "inadequate lavatory facilities,
and insufficient heating and ventilation".

[8] Human rights monitors received from credible sources reports of

"numerous cases of brutality committed by prison guards against
inmates" and that "the process by which prisoners may complain of
substandard conditions or of mistreatment does not appear to function
effectively". The Speaker has himself briefly documented his own
experiences in Part 1 [see above : "Fact of the Case: Respondent's
Reliance on its Criminal Prosecution of the Speaker"].

[9] The U.S. State Department reported noting that the Bulgaria
Constitution [as cited below] provided for access to a lawyer at the time
of detention. It further observed that the law required that all pre-trial
investigation to be completed by the prosecutor in the worst case not
more than 9 months.

[10] However, a survey of prisoners and reported cases showed that 54

percent of those arrested were denied access to an attorney and in
practice the simplest investigations took one and even two years to
bring to trial. Even then, the State Department reports, cases were
returned by prosecutors or judges for more investigation or as a result of
violations of a detainees rights of defence. The court may recall the
speakers case took more than 3 years to investigate, of which he spent
the better part of those years in solitary confinement.

[11] Local observers reported to U.S. State Department sources that

organised crime influences the prosecutors office. This report reinforces
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports that the
judiciary has "antiquated procedures", a heavy backlog of case and
there continues to be wide spread corruption.

[12] The Observation Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the

Council of Europe in December of 1998 prior to its dissolution related
concerns that there were "inadequate safeguards for the independence
of the judiciary in the country."

[13] Of significance to the case before the trial court and the present enquiry
into the conditions from which the Speaker must prosecute his law suit
are the words found in a U.S. State Department report:
[11] "It is alleged that warrants to investigate suspects' private financial records

sometimes are abused to give police broad and openended authority to engage

in far-ranging investigations of a suspects' family and associates. There are

regular, albeit not conclusive or systemic, reports of mail, especially foreign

mail, being delayed and/or opened."

[12] [Emphasis Added - Mine]

[1] The court is asked to recall the facts surrounding the Crown's request to
have the Speaker and the plaintiffs company prosecuted by Bulgarian
authorities. It is recalled that the Crown request was in order to aid the
Attorney General of the province to obtain information from Bulgaria for
a criminal investigation in British Columbia [see: "Facts of Case:
Malicious Prosecution " - July 7 1995 Crown Request].

[2] Of some significance to the trial court and the present enquiry are the
independent reports that the "Government exerts an unduly large
influence on the media through official channels" and that "Journalists
frequently colour their reports to conform with the views of the political
parties or economic groups that own their newspapers." This report is
consistent with plaintiffs claims against the Respondent that sound in
the tort of defamation.

[3] The Speaker has made complaints of Anti-Semitism as being a part of

the harsh treatment he experienced after his arrest. This complaint is
consistent with the U.S. State Department report of "discrimination,
harassment, and general public intolerance" towards religious minorities
not a part of the traditional mainstream of the Orthodox Church. And
that "Numerous articles in a broad range of newspapers as well as
television documentaries, drew lurid and inaccurate pictures of the
activities of non-Orthodox religious groups".
[4] It is to be recalled that numerous articles concerning the plaintiffs were
written making reference to Canadian government sources connecting
the Speaker, a Jew, to the culture of Judaic mysticism and Kabbalistic
beliefs. It will be recalled that this connection was provided by the
Crown in 1995 to agents of the Ministry of Interior of the Defendant


[5] AI continued to express concerns in its August 2000 report about the
continuing "high incidence of reports of ill-treatment by Bulgarian police
officers. A questionnaire survey conducted among nearly 1000 convicts
in Bulgaria's prison system on behalf of the Bulgarian Helsinki
Committee in early 1999 revealed over half claimed that they were
tortured or ill treated during arrest", causing AI to conclude that ill
treatment continued to be a "systemic, institutional problem".

[6] The Bulgaria government agencies continue to refuse to provide human

rights organisations with reports into case of torture or ill treatment.. AI
writing that such refusals "cast doubt on their conduct". The AI Annual
Report 2000 made the following conclusions that are significant to the
trial court proceedings and present applications before the Court of

[13] "There were reports of ill-treatment and torture by police, and of a death in

police custody. There are also reports that people who complained about torture

and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials were subject to intimidation or

further ill-treatment."

[14] "The UN Committee against Torture met in April and May to consider

Bulgaria's second periodic report. The committee found that Bulgarian law
lacked a definition of torture and failed to ensure that all acts of torture are

offences under criminal law. The committee expressed concern about

continuing reports of ill-treatment by public officials, particularly the

police, especially of ethnic minorities. The committee also expressed

concern about the deficiencies in the system of investigation of alleged

cases of torture and the failure to bring those allegations before a judge or

other appropriate judicial authority."

[15] [Emphasis Added - Mine]

Definitions of Torture.

[1] It may be reasonable here to introduce to the court the internationally

accepted interpretation given to the terms "cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment".

[2] The Appeal Court is asked to extend the widest possible interpretation
to the international obligation of states, and the duty of the judiciary in
protecting against abuses, whether physical or mental, including the
holding of a detained or imprisoned person in conditions which deprive
him, temporarily or permanently of the use of any of his natural senses,
such as sight or hearing, or of his awareness of place and the passing
of time. [see for referance: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 39/46,
[annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51
(1984)], entered into force June 26, 1987 as follows:

[16] · "PART I

[17] · "Article I
[18] "1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by

which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally

inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person

information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has

committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing

him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the

consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official

capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or

incidental to lawful sanctions."

[1] See for further reference as well: The Declaration on the Protection of
All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 3452 (XXX), annex,
30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 34) at 91, U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1975) as

[19] · "Article 1

[20] "1. For the purpose of this Declaration, torture means any act by which severe

pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at

the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining

from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act

he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or

other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent

in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard

Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

[21] "2. Torture constitutes an aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment.

[22] "Article 2

[23] "Any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial

of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the

human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights .


[1] The foregoing presentation are the particular factual circumstances

surrounding the applications presently before the Appeal Court. The
facts of the case combine to form factors that create a set of unusual
circumstances that in the past have limited and complicated the
Speaker's practical possibilities to observe, inter alia, the limitations of
time to make appeals or hearing dates or attend the hearing of various
applications. To fully appreciate the significance and magnitude of the
Speaker's difficulties requires additional reflection on the historic and
present conditions in the Republic of Bulgaria as found in reliable
international reports.

[2] International comity, and the foreign law of Bulgaria, as naturally flows
from the applicable principles of international law, play key roles in
determining the issue of what limitations can reasonably be placed on
the rights of incarcerated and indigent citizens before a court of law.

[3] This Honourable Court is asked to recall that the claims of the plaintiffs
Nicholas, Tatiana, Tracy and Robert are connected to the "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" they suffered in the
province as third parties. On other occasions the plaintiffs in the
province were the principle targets in the attempts by officials of the
defendant Bulgaria at coercing money or information as to money in the
province from them, the defendant Bulgaria relying on threats of
violence against the Speaker or promises to end his torture to coerce
the plaintiffs to co-operate.

[4] It is again recalled, that the money in question being so aggressively

sought after by the Defendant Bulgaria are those funds having been
identified in a written indictment prepared by the Crown against the
plaintiff Kapoustin, a Canadian citizen, without the benefit of the
protections and guarantees found under Canadian law. The Crown
having requested the prosecution of the plaintiff Kapoustin by defendant
Bulgaria in May and July of 1995.

68. On 17 February 2000 at court's hearing Applicant asked the following:

"I'd like to draw your attention against proceeding with the

judicial investigation according to the new Article 285 of the
CPC. This Article provides for the proceedings to be held fully
under the European law on extradition, which this court has
announced is not within its competence. My opinion is
supported by a letter of the SCPO Nestor Nestorov date 26
January 2000 in which he states that it is not necessary for the
prosecutor to explain the accusations or to give qualifications
to them. The procedural law as embodied in the Constitution
makes it incumbent upon the court the accusations to be
included in the process and to be honoured and the court to
take them into consideration. Upon these grounds I pose a
question to SCC or SCPO to take into account the new thesis
of the accusation with contradictory facts and circumstances
under the case, which contradict the qualifying circumstances
of the Article of CC. I demand the Presiding Judge or the
representative of the prosecution to comply the new
accusation with the applicable law - ECE. If it is not possible
to do this, the proceedings should not continue since
important rules will not be observed and the court is obliged
to ensure observing them. The Presiding Judge is allowed to
continue with the proceeding within the merits of facts and
circumstances - their qualification under German legislation -
Article 263 and Article 266 of the German Criminal Code.
This decision of the Court is in violation of the procedural
rules of the Code and the rules for extradition under
international laws, which the Presiding Judge is obliged to
observe. ECE prevails and the rules under Chapter IV and V,
Part III of the CPC should be observed. You are officially
obliged to qualify the new accusation according to the
German legislation. The facts and circumstances refer to
Article 21 para 1 item 1, CPC. The new accusation is not
qualified as an extraditable offence neither under Bulgarian,
nor under German law. This rule is under Articles 12 and 2 of
ECE. It is obvious when reading the extradition request of
MPPO of the Republic of Bulgaria that the Defendant has not
been extradited for embezzlement of money. The company's
capital consists of 75% my share and 25% minority share. It is
obvious that under the new accusation the issue is not about
other people's money but company's money, therefore of my
money, which I owe being principal shareholder. This is not a
reason for extradition. These facts and circumstances
contradict the new thesis of the accusation and obviously do
not comply with and are not qualifyable under the ECE, which
you are obliged to observe according to Article 51 para (1)
CPC. There is no evidence before this court which shows the
time, place and the beneficiary of all the funds presented as
accusation. No opinion has been expressed concerning this
issue. I would like to see evidence supporting the accusation -
I mean the new accusation, according to the German
legislation. Her Honour knows her decision from 23
September 1999, in which she assessed that this judicial
investigation has nothing to do with the money funds of the
company. This judicial investigation contradicts the new
accusation - your conclusions - a paradox, which should find
an answer.

The fact that the accusation of embezzlement as presented in

the hypothesis of Article 201, CC, according to this logic the
investors who received dividends have to be included as co -
accused. I'm sorry, I am not qualified enough to understand
this judicial investigation.

Attorney Lukanov: There is no request for agreement from

Bulgaria to Germany concerning the new accusation
according to Article 12 of ECE. There is no official protocol in
this direction too.

In view of the absence of approval on part of Germany

according to the law of specialty under the Convention, the
defence makes an official inquiry to Germany. Please accept a
copy. The Defendant wishes and has the absolute right to
examine the evidence under the new accusation, i.e. that he
has embezzled funds of LCI [LCIAD]. I will cite Decision No
107/98 of the Supreme Cassation Court (SCaC) wherein it is
stated that the accused has the right to learn what he is
accused of, upon what grounds and upon what evidence. This
has to be observed because vice versa the right of defense as
per Article 330, CPC is essentially violated. I consider the
request of the Defendant for ceasing of the case by virtue of
Article 287 § (1) item 1, CPC is grounded in view of major
(essential) procedural violations.

The Court after deliberation:

Finds that the request for ceasing of the judicial proceeding is
without merit and therefore should be left unhonoured

The same request was made during the previous judicial

sitting concerning the unconformity of the newly accepted
accusation with the accusation set out in the MPPO request
and the Court ruled that this is an issue of the essence of the
case, it is to be discussed at passing the verdict and there is no
legal possibility according to the rules of CPC to rule upon
this issue during the judicial proceedings.

As for the power of the court under Article 285 CPC - it is

only to accept the new accusation and to assess to what extent
the conditions under §§ 2, 3 and 4 of the same text are

69. On 27 March 2000 Prosecutor Bakalov, SCaPO ruled in answer to the Applicant's
appeal :

on 14 January 1998 SCPO has submitted to SCC - Criminal
College an Act of Indictment against you for an offence under
Article 203, para 1, in conj. With Article 202 para (1), item 1,
in conj. With Article 201, in conj. With Article 26 para (1), in
conj. With Article 211, hypothesis 1, in conj. With Article 210,
para (1), item 3, hypothesis 1, in conj. Article 209, para (1),
CC. A criminal of common character case has been instituted
No 1404/98 [wrong - No 1403]. Several judicial sittings have
been held (heard?) and the latter is in the phase of judicial
investigation. You have defence counsel secured.

There are no grounds to accept that Judge Mitkova has

violated Article 286, CPC. Even if circumstances for another
crime committed by another person have been found out, who
has not been subpoenaed as a Defendant, the court sends the
materials to the prosecutor and continues hearing the case. In
view of the explicit and clear text of law you can not use this
as a procedural ground to stop the proceedings.

There is no data for violation on part of Judge Mitkova under

Article 287, CPC. The crime you have been taken legal action
for is not subject to be considered by a higher court or by
court martial.

If you are still firmly convinced that during the judicial

investigation the judicial panel of SCC - Criminal College has
allowed procedural violations, this will give you grounds to
appeal the verdict taken (passed) against you by initiating a
procedure with the intermediate court of appeal - respectively
the Sofia Appeal Court (SAC).

Iv you have doubts that Judge Mitkova is biased or impartial

directly or indirectly concerning the end of the case, you have
the right to challenge her. The issue is to be resolved in
camera with the participation of all members of the panel
according to the rule of Article 37 para (4), CPC.

There is no place for interference of the Main Public

Prosecutor with a pending penal proceeding."

IV. Before the Registrar

158. On 12 April 2000 the Registrar received a complaint prepared by Bulgarian

attorney and Applicant’s prior defence counsel Anatol Lukanov, wherein he did
allege violations of Convention Article 6 § 1, Article 5 §1 abstract (c) and Article 5
§ 4 on the grounds that, inter alia, the tribunal reviewing appeals of the Applicant
was biased against him in that its members had on several previous occasions
issued final rulings; that national law, Article 25 Criminal Procedure Code,
prohibited a court member in reviewing a case twice; that the in camera Rulings
violated the principle of Equality At Arms; the habeas corpus right of the
Applicant was repeatedly violated in that no review was made as to the cause,
legal and procedural merit of his arrest; bias against the nationality [Canadian] of
the Applicant in that others [Bulgarian] similarly situated had been released on
remand; no effect domestic remedy existed neither to redress an unreasonable
period of remand in arrest [2 February 1996 – 12 April 2000] or an unlawful arrest
and detention [remand] in prison and refusal of the Government to explain the
nature of its accusation and provide access to all the evidence collected by it.
Enclosed where certified copies of the relevant judicial enactments complied
of as handed down by the respective court(s).

162. On 25 May 2000 the Applicant received from the Registrar, Legal Secretary J.
Dimitrieva – Najdanova, a deficiency letter, wherein upon the subject matter of the
aforestated claims [see before § …] the letter reads:

[24] “Insofar as you complain that the criminal proceedings against

you are unfair I should draw your attention to Article 35 § 1 of

the Convention which provides that the Court may only deal

with the matter after all domestic remedies have been

exhausted. From your submissions it appears that the

proceedings are still pending before domestic courts.

You have not substantiated your last complaint that you are
unlawfully deprived your freedom. You have neither furnished
further detail nor sent any documents or judicial decisions in
this respect.

If you intend pursuing an application these explanations, you

are informed that you should do so quickly, as a failure to act
with due diligence in the preliminary proceedings before the
Court may affect the date of introduction of the Application
and thus the running of the six months’ time limit laid down in
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention”

163. On … Applicant complained to … that their conduct was such as to

make it impossible the judicial parity of defence or an application
before the ECHR if investigative and trial Judge Mitkova or the
Government refused to provide documents requested [see after § …
§…] essential to the Applicant.

164. On 20 July 2000, in reply to the 25 May 2000 deficiency letter of the
Registrar, the Applicant by electronic mail and registered post as an
interim measure and signal of Government hindrance he wrote as
“Dear Ms. Najdanova,

I send my compliments to your Section and gratitude for the

concerns expressed in your 25 May 2000 letter. This response
is much delayed as a consequence of my physical and
material circumstances of which you are aware. However if no
new obstacles are placed before me by the High Contracting
Party, Bulgaria, I should be able to shortly submit in
comprehensive detail additional supporting documentation
and argument.

As to the issues of merit raised in your letter I express again

my gratitude for your forbearance as I struggle to understand
the practice of the Court as well as the Rules. My response is
as follows:

1. … [sic]
2. … [sic]
3. As to the unlawful deprivation of my liberty, prolonged and
unreasonable detention on remand, I refer to the case law
embodied in Lukanov v. Bulgaria judgement of 20 March
1997, Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, judgement of 28
October 1998 and Nikolova v. Bulgaria judgement of 25
March 1999. In each instance violation of Article 5 §1 or
alternatively §3 and §4 in conjunction with Article 13 of the
Convention have been unanimously upheld. I respectfully
remind you that I have been under remand since February 6,
1996 upto the present and have no sentence yet passed by any
court. I have appealed for release on remand on 22 separate
occasions before every authority available to me. Respectfully
I remind the Section that I have been in arrest during the
period that the above mentioned case law was established and
the circumstances of my 5 year detention far exceed the
periods in remand of Lukanov, Assenov or Nikolova.

4. In all the aforesaid matters I respectfully remind the Section

that officials of the Bulgarian judicial authorities obstruct this
Applicant and many others in our efforts to obtain copies of
Rulings. Making our applications to the Court difficult, if
often not impossible.

5. … [sic]

V. Government Documents [Evidence] Demanded

165. On 29 November 1999 the Applicant petitioned the Court (see Exhibit No …) to
subpoena the Main Public Prosecutor’s Office, Republic of Bulgaria (hereinafter
“MPPO”) to produce or order the production, inter alia, notes; directives; memos;
reports; all private criminal complaints of embezzlement [Article 203, Criminal
Code] as lodged up to and including 28 November 1995 and any audits in support
of the accusation thereof; all private criminal complaints of misappropriation
[Article 206, Criminal Code] as lodged up to and including 12 February 1996 and
any audits in support thereof; all private criminal complaints of fraud [Article 211,
Criminal Code] as lodged up to and including the available 12 February 1996
MPPO documents and evidence claimed by the Government as proving the
existence of, inter alia, 9065 victims of the embezzlement; 3400 statements of
claim of witnesses against the Applicant as collected by MPPO by the aforesaid
date; a 382 page computer report listing what the Government represented as 9000
fraudulent contracts proving Bulgarian citizens “deposited” 12,600,000 USD with
the Applicant and further the Government produce a list of the names of “dead
souls” [deceased Bulgarian citizens] claimed by the Government to the agencies of
Interpol as proving a large amount of dirty [criminal] money have been washed
[laundered]” by the Applicant.

166. On … the Court order that: (quote order to produce evidence)

167. On 6 December 1999 the Applicant petitioned the Court (see Exhibit No …) to
seize under Articles 116 item 5 and 133, Criminal Procedure Code [Bulgaria]
documents and material evidence previously subpoenaed by and for the defence
but never having been delivered. The Applicant’s grounds, inter alia, read:

1. Previous orders of this Court to institutions of the State to

produce evidence and documents in their possession as
demanded by the Defendant and defense have gone unrealized
for the most part. The National Investigative Service, the
Bulgarian National Bank, the Tax Department “Sredetz”, the
Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs and the office of the
Sofia City Prosecutor have according to Court files and the
Defendant’s best information and belief ignored, denied,
obstructed, delayed or altered in some way the evidence and
documents demanded by the Court.

2. The Court has been unable for the most part to produce or
secure for examination by the Defense the demanded and
requested by order of the presiding judge documental
evidence. The failure of the Court to fulfil its obligation to the
Defense to collect evidence essential to it is indicative of a
judicial process biased in favor of the prosecution.

3. The failure of the various state institutions to co-operate with

this court and the defense provides strong subjective and
objective grounds to conclude that new demands by this judge
for evidence which may establish the Defendant’s innocence
and thus aggravate the seriousness of the procedural
violations and unlawful acts of various officials against him
will go unheeded once again.

And that furthermore or in the alternative the requested party

will be provided an opportunity to destroy or alter the
materials demanded in an effort to conceal their
irresponsibility or participation in the questionable legal and
procedural actions undertaken by them.

The Defendant has submitted this petition sealed in the first

instance by registered mail directly to Her Honor Mitkova
and, in the second instance by registered mail to the Ministry
of Justice and Legal Euro Integration, office of the Minister.
And has done so in consideration of the aforestated. Being
factual representations, of which Her Honor and the Court
are well aware. And in the interest of the secrecy necessary to
preserve, intact and unaltered, the nature, character and
content of the files and any other forms of written evidence in
possession of the parties cited herein and subpoenaed hereby.

170. The Applicant further petitioned additional documents be sequestered by the

Court, his request reads:

Part II – The Documents Demanded

The Defendant demands the Court seize:

1. From the offices of Major Ivanov of the Bulgarian economical

police those files, documents, memorandums, reports,
statements or other protocols as provided to him by Advocate
Mila Popova Bogdanova on behalf of the Defendant’s
company and on or before commencement of the official
preliminary inquiry. In September of 1995 Major Ivanov met
with and interviewed legal representatives of the Defendant
and was provided evidence and explanations in regard to the
Defendant, as listed on page 1 items 1-7 of Exhibit “A”.

This inquiry and criminal investigation with statements,

reports, protocols, letters or respective files precedes the Oct.
26, 1995 order to commence inquiry by Prosecutor Blagev. Yet
is neither reference, nor made a part of this case.
2. From the offices of Prosecutor Topurov of the Sofia City
Prosecutor’s Office, room 59A, floor 4, tel. 8871, ext. 365 those
files, documents, memorandums, reports, statements, claims,
protests, interviews, letters and any other protocols which were
provided to him by Advocates Mila Popova Bogdanova and
Nadia Popova representatives of the Defendant and company on
or about October of 1994 and others.

Prosecutor Topurov 12 months prior to the second inquiry

instituted on October 26, 1995 against the Defendant upon the
same subject matter, was conducting an investigation of the
Defendant, his company and the depositary receipts
distributed by. The investigation was instituted at the request
and upon the written complaint of the Supervisory Committee
of the Bulgarian National Bank.

The results of this 1994 inquiry and criminal investigation by

the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office upon the same subject
matter and subject criminal inferences should be made a part
of this case and so available to the Defendant. The
investigative conclusions therein are not considered or
reviewed by Prosecutors Blagev or Stoyanov yet are directly
related to the Sofia Prosecutor’s overall consideration
whether or not the Defendant’s activities could be considered
criminal when initiated by him in 1994.

3. From the offices of Prosecutor Topurov those files, documents,

memorandums, reports, statements, claims, protests,
interviews, letters and any other protocols which were
provided him by representatives of the Bulgarian National
Bank on or about May through October of 1994 and upon
which he grounded the institution of an inquiry against the
Defendant and his company upon the subject matter of
distribution of depositary receipts.

4. From the offices of the Supervising Committee of the

Bulgarian National Bank and the offices of those individuals
identified in the complaints filed within Sofia City
Prosecutor’s Office all files, documents, memorandums,
reports, statements, claims, protests, interviews, letters and
any other protocols which were submitted to them or by them
to any other party concerning the 1994 activities of the
Defendant and his company.
70. On 2 February 2000 the Applicant filed an Objection and Appeal with the Sofia
Appeal Court (SAC) and his appeal reads in part:
[1] In accordance with the Defendant’s right embodied in
Article 345 para (1) PPC and as qualified under Article
344 para (3) the Defendant objects to and seeks the
modification of a ruling subject to verification by the
procedural order setout in Article 348 PPC. The
Defendant seeks appellate review of Judge Mitkova’s
Ruling that Article 439 para (1) PPC and Article 14 para
(3) European Convention on Extradition are not
procedurally incumbent upon her or possible.


On January 14, 2000 Her Honor Mitkova brought a new

accusation against the Defendant whose facts and
circumstances were qualified under Article 203 PC. This was
grounded upon evidence collected by her court during the
judicial inquiry which disclosed evidence, according to the
Court, of a new offence other than that for which the
Defendant was extradited. The extraditable offences in the
factual and circumstantial parts were setout in the SCPO
warrants of arrest issued on Nov. 27,1995 and Feb. 12, 1996.
And as subsequently submitted on Feb. 16. 1996 by the MPPO
to the Federal democratic Republic of Germany as required
under Article 436 para (1) item 1 PPC in conjunction Article
12 of the European Convention on Extradition.

[3] The admission of a new accusation, despite its similar

qualifying Article, is out of order and constitutes a
violation of substantive law. Chapter 22, Section I, in
particular Article 439 para (1) PPC makes officially
implicit and incumbent upon the Court to proceed only
upon the crime for which extradition was granted, not
the qualifying penal article. Her Honor’s ruling violated
the procedure setout under this chapter and section of
the code. Her Honor Mitkova’s Ruling to bring a new
charge breached not only the substantive law embodied
in the PPC but Bulgaria’s and therefore its judiciaries
official obligation to the convention which protects this
Defendant’s rights according to Article 93 para 13 PC.
Judge Mitkova further and specifically violated the
principle embodied in Article 14 para (3) in conjunction
with Article 12 para 1 and 2 abstract (b) in conjunction
with Article 2 para 1 and 2 of the ECE. She must have,
but did not, qualify if the new accusation’s constituent
elements qualified as an extraditable offence according
the laws of the FDRG.

The Defendant seeks to subject Judge Mitkova’s Ruling to

appellate verification on the grounds that she is officially
bound to observe Chapter Twenty Two, Section I PPC. Due to
the nature of the case and the Defendant’s status under Article
93 para 13 PC it is requested the appellate judges determine if
it is or is not officially incumbent upon the SCC to be guided
by the procedures in the ECE as superseding law according to
the constitutional principle of Article 5 para (4) of the
Constitution of RB.

Her Honor Mitkova was cited the relevant law by the

Defendant and defense. Her Honor abnegated her
responsibility by citing that there existed no procedure
possibility to her to consider defense pleas that the entry of a
new accusation by Her violated substantive law and the
Defendant’s rights under Article 93 (13) PC, as well as Her
official responsibility under constitutional law.

This decision to not rule on the defense motion to reject the

new accusation is without merit and must be overturned.
Article 439 (1) PPC in conjunction with Article 21 para (1)
PPC, as amended, together with Article 14 (3) ECE provide
Her Honor sufficient procedure possibilities to dismiss the
new charge and allow the proceedings to continue under the
remaining charge. Article 247 PPC is adequately rich in
possibilities to end proceedings on charges not qualified
under Article 439 para (1) PPC. Or to, in the alternative,
return the indictment to the SCPO for compliance with Article
439 para (1) PPC and 14 para (3) ECE and institute a new
trial on the new charges subsequent to the issuance of an
indictment modified to reflect the new accusation and facts.
The Defendant demands the appellate court review and
resolve this clear breach of procedure and law by modifying
or revoking Judge Mitkova’s ruling and force her to comply
with the official responsibility incumbent upon a judge of the
SCC. And to comply with the procedure possibilities set down
in law. In the alternative the Defendant demands the appellate
court motivate clearly why the aforesaid articles of law and
procedure are not incumbent upon Her Court.
TAX No 1220036134
12, Ghurko St.

Further to your enquiry about VAT paid for selling of ODR by Life Choice Int. AD for the
period Sept.7th, 1994 – Dec. 31st, 1994 we’d like to advise the following:

1. In Taxation Statement #808-VAT dated July, 10th, 1995 issued by Tax Department
“Sredetz” an 18% VAT-liability over the total value of the ODR sold by Life Choice
Int. AD for the said period has been determined. Being a person registered under VAT
Law Life Choice Int. AD had to accrue and pay in favour of the State Budget 18%
over their taxable transactions such as selling ODR. In their nature ODR are private
documents different from the securities regulated by law. It is stated on them that
funds gathered through them are part of company’s capital. Such assertion presumes
observing the rules for accumulation of capital determined by Commercial Law
which in this case does not belong to a person (?- perhaps physical person). The only
provisions of law refer to issuing of either temporary receipts or shares after the initial
accumulation of the capital of a company. These ODR have been printed in
contradiction with the Instructions for the Terms and Order of Printing and Control
over Securities. Paying of dividends to the owners of ODR is in breach of art.184 of
Commercial Law where it is stated that dividend is annual payment to share holders
calculated on the basis of the net profit of the company and the number of shares
owned. Contracts of the kind of ODR at the time of their concluding(?) are not
considered to be “securities” according to law. Transactions like selling and buying of
ODR and other financial documents of this kind without the permission of Bulgarian
People’s Bank (BNB) are considered to be transactions ruled by VAT Law and are to
be levied with 18% VAT.
2. Buying back of the ODR and the interest (dividends) paid on them should not be
charged with 18% VAT over the amounts paid to their owners. Most of the persons
who have received the sums for investing in ODR with Life Choice Int. AD are not
registered persons under VAT Law. They do not exercise economic activity taxable
with VAT. They should not be levied with 36% on the sums paid to them.
3. For the reason of the Taxation Statement issued the bank accounts of Life Choice Int.
AD have been blocked but no amounts have been received to redeem the VAT
liabilities of the company.

Aug.15th, 1995 Head of Tax Department Sredetz

(K. Ikonomova)

Translation M. Radoulova
Aug. 22nd,1999
Page 1 of the original document



RE: Preliminary verification under file with incoming Ref. No. 5200r/1995


[4] On June 28, 1995 a signal was received at the Sofia Direction of the
Ministry of Interior (SDMI) from the Chief of Tax Department “Sredetz” in
the city of Sofia, in which data were revealed for a crime of general
character committed by the person Mihail Kapoustin – an executive
member of the Board of Directors of “Lifechoice International” AD, Sofia.
In that signal facts were specified in detail and motivated, which
[ulichavat] Mrr. Kapoustin as an offender under Article 313, paragraph 2
of the CC. Later identical materials came in the SDMI from SUDA [Sofia
Tax Administration] and from the SCPO (Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office).
At the same time with reference to the actions of Mr. Kapoustin in his
capacity of an executive member of the Board of Directors of “Lifechoice
International” AD, complaints started being filed by depositors of funds
with the company, in which it was alleged that Kapoustin defrauded
them by unlawfully not giving back amounts deposited by them with the
company despite the fact that the contracts for submitting of these funds
have expired.

In connection with the signals thus received and with the directions given by the SCPO
materials and information [svedenia] were additionally collected by

Page 2 of the original document

the competent State authorities with reference to the activities of the company and those
of its major shareholder Mihail Kapoustin and the following factual background was

I. “Lifechoice International” AD, Sofia was registered on June 17, 1993

by Decision No. 15249 of the SCC – Companies Department. The
company was registered in compliance with the requirements of
Bulgarian legislation and consists of two shareholders:

1. Mihail Kapoustin with 7,500 shares /100 BGL each/]

2. Milka Petkova Bogdanova with 2,500 shares /100 BGL each/.

Mihail Kapoustin, except for being a major shareholder pursuant to the Articles of
Association and other documents of incorporation of the company, is constituted also as
an executive member of the Board of Directors, thus appropriating [obsebva –
engrossing, taking hold of] all the activities carried out by the company and has the right
for veto upon all the decisions taken by the other members of the Board of Directors,
personally [ednolichno] determining the directions of development of the company. It is a
fact that no one except for Kapoustin has the opportunity to operate the corporate funds.
This is confirmed by the explanations taken from Mr. Paroushev – a director in the
company and Mrs. Bogdanova – Popova – a shareholder and legal counsel of the
company and also from the complaints of “Lifechoice International” AD depositors.

II. For the period of time from its incorporation until the end of May 1995 the
company, in the person of its executive member of the Board of Directors,
using the gaps [prazninite] in the Bulgarian legislation and the extremely
generally formulated subject of its activities develops intense activities for
collection of funds in leva and foreign currency from the population, the funds
alleged to be invested in branches of Bulgarian economy.
The collecting of funds from the population is effected through the so-called
“financial instruments” of the company – Redeemable Depositary Receipt /RDR/ and
American Depositary Receipt /ADR/. Mr. Kapoustin and the employees of the
company alleged before the depositors that these are securities of special type but as a
result from inquiries made with the competent authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria
it was established that the so-called “trust receipts” [Depositary Receipts] are printed
contrary to the requirements of the Ordinance for

Page 3 of the original document

the Conditions and Order for Printing and Control upon Securities. At the same time
these receipts can be made equal (reduced - note of translator) to a temporary contract
for money deposit, which in its essence represents effecting of banking activities, for
which the company is not licensed by BNB pursuant to the requirements of the Law
on Banking and Crediting Activities. On the other part the “Trust Receipts”
themselves contain false allegations, which in practice mislead and delude the citizens
willing to buy them. For instance, in ADR in item 2 of part “Guarantees” it reads that:
“All ADR are secured by deposits and fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation of the USA, which is a Government organization, up to the invested
amount /the nominal value of ADR/”. This allegation is completely absurd, since the
purpose of this Service is not this and from the complaints it can be seen that when
submitting the ADR for buying back, there are no funds to cover the face value of the

As far as investing of the funds collected is concerned, real investments there are only
and solely in the pharmaceutical industry, which can be seen from the contracts for
mutual activities between the company and NCIPD, Sofia attached to the
correspondence [prepiskata]. The amount of investment in these activities is
insignificant in comparison to the funds collected. At the same time these activities of
the company are used for legal transfer of considerable amounts of foreign currency
abroad in the form of purchasing of different types of medicines and components for
them, which, as it can be seen from the custom's reference attached, have neither been
exported, nor imported in the Republic of Bulgaria.

The other investment projects of the company are still in the phase of investigation
[prouchvane - might be research as well - note of translator] and approval by the
competent State authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria and practically they can not
be seen and evaluated.

III. It was also established that only statistics is being kept in LifeChoice
International - AD and there is no accountancy for the fiscal year 1994, in
particular for RDR and ADR. This obstructs establishing the exact number of
depositors [vlojiteli] and of the amount of their deposits [vlojenia] with the
company. The absence of such information leads in practice to full lack of
control over spending of the funds and to concealing their origin.
Page 4 of the original document

IV. Until present in the Sofia Direction of the Ministry of Interior (SDMI) through
the SCPO and from other places complaints have been filed by some 500 /five
hundred/ depositors [vlojiteli] of the company who complain that they have
been defrauded and also 200 /two hundred/ complaints from depositors of the
company, who determine the acts of the tax department with reference to
collecting of VAT as being unlawful.

1. In connection with the complaints of the defrauded depositors it should be noted that
the principal motives they specify in support of the thesis that they have been
defrauded can be grouped as follows:

A/ Breach of the contract concluded between the depositor and the company
- no payment of interests upon the amounts deposited;
- no payment of the capital amounts deposited;

B/ Fraudulent allegations with reference to the guarantees for the amounts deposited
as specified by the company;

C/ Forceful constituting of the depositors as shareholders of the depositors despite

their unwillingness.

2. With reference to the complaints from depositors of the company directed against the
actions of the tax employees, it can be stated that they have no legal grounds, since
the actions of the tax authorities are in compliance with the normative regulations. At
the same time for a part of these motions there are statements filed for their
withdrawal. It is also impressive that these motions have the same text and only the
names of the persons who filed them are different, which supposes they have been
prepared at one and the same place by the same persons - employees of LifeChoice
International - AD or its consultants.

In connection with the facts and circumstances so laid out and from the materials
collected during the inspection carried out, I consider there is enough data for initiating of
a preliminary proceeding against the executive member of the Board of Directors and
major shareholder - Mihail Kapoustin under Article 203, Article 211 and Article 313 of
the CC. As far as the complaints - motions from depositors of the company with reference
to the unlawful actions of the tax employees are concerned, I offer the latter to be
separated from the correspondence and to be attached to case due to the absence of
enough data for an offence committed.

The above is for information and to order!

October 6, 1995 REPORT GIVEN BY
Sofia OPERATIVE WORKER: (signature illegible)
VI/AS /Ivanov/
Main Public Prosecutor’s Office National Investigation
Of Ref. No 67 dd jan. 3rd,

The Republic of Bulgaria


Department “Investigation” TO THE NATIONAL


Sofia Dec. 28, 1996 42, “G.M.Dimitrov” Blvd, dept. 03
Under inv. case No 195/95 of NIS
Attn. investigator STEFCHO


For No 3097/95
Attn. prosecutor Mario Stoyanov
For reference


KAPOUSTIN, being at present in the
lock-up of NIS – Sofia
Through his defence under the case
attorney Plamen Stoilov – Sofia
Lawyers’ College (SLC),
52, “Tzar Samouil” St., floor 4


A.1.7.Sofia Dec. 27, 1996

[5] I, Plamen Tzankov – a prosecutor at the Main Public Prosecutor’s Office
(MPPO) of RB, department “Investigation”, after having examined
correspondence No 5274/96 as per the schedule of MPPO of RB that generated
as per a statement of complaint dated Oct. 30, 1996 of attorney Plamen Stoilov
– SLC, defence of the defendant Michael Kapoustin under inv. case No 195/95
as per the schedule of NIS against the attendance securing measure “Detention
Under Custody” ordered,


[6] The complaint is groundless.

Investigation case under No 195/95 as per the schedule of NIS has been brought up by
the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office on Oct. 26, 1995 against the Canadian citizen Michael
Kapoustin for an offence as per art. 203, par. 1 and art. 26, par. 1 of CC effected by him
in his capacity of an executive director of Life Choice Int. AD. The company received
deposits amounting to millions of USD from more than 15 000 citizens.

Kapoustin absconded from the investigation, therefore MPPO of RB searched him

through NCB (unknown abbreviation) Interpol Germany and he was detained under
custody at our request by the German judicial authorities on Feb. 7, 1996 as being
accused and he was extradited to Bulgaria on Sept. 2, 1996.

At his arrest in Germany the accused Kapoustin went on a hunger strike, which brought
to worsening his state of health and this was the reason to delay his surrender to
Bulgarian authorities. After his arrival to Sofia he was put into the Central Hospital of the
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for treatment and examinations and after his state of
health was improved, on Sept. 16, 1996 he was transferred to the lock-up of NIS, where
he stays at present.

As a result of the hunger strike Kapoustin lost considerable weight, he complains that his
health is poor, he’s lapsed into depression and insists to give him the chance to continue
with his activity as an executive director of Life Choice Int. AD with the purpose to
redeem the money of the depositors with the company.

The Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office (SCPO) has issued a ruling dated Oct.1, 1996 under
correspondence No 3097/95 as per the schedule of SCPO referring claims of attorney
Stoilov having rejected with the respective arguments (motives) the claims for changing
the presence securing measure “Detention under Custody” taken against Kapoustin.

Under this case has been ordered and is present a triple medical expertise No 4775 dated
Sept. 16, 1996 prepared by medical experts from the Central Hospital of MHA.
According to this expertise the weight of Kapoustin when discharged from hospital was
95 kg and he does not need medication at present. A triple judicial psychiatric and
psychological expertise has been ordered as well and its conclusion from Dec. 2 nd, 1996
made by experts - medical doctors and a psychologist from the Lunatic Asylum “St.
Naum”– IV Kilometer in Sofia, says that there is no data for mental derangement of the
person examined (certified).

By a ruling dated Oct. 7, 1996 of the investigator of the case a task has been assigned to
the medical department of NIS to carry out constant supervision over the accused
Kapoustin in the lock-up. A doctor visits him every day in the cell and the guards watch
him over with the purpose not to allow any extraordinary accidents and to safeguard the
health and life of the prisoner.

The medical reference submitted by SCPO under ref. No 13585 dated Oct. 30, 1996
CERTIFIES THAT KAPOUSTIN has well preserved state of health with stabilized
clinical and paraclinical scores. Reanimation and a special diet have been recommended
to him to compensate the consequences of the hunger strike.

Simultaneously there is no data for reimbursement of money to depositors with Life

Choice Int. AD by Kapoustin or other persons.

Consular surveillance has been established over the accused KAPOUSTIN by the
Canadian embassy in Bucarest, Romania for he is a Canadian citizen as well as by the
German Embassy in Sofia in compliance with the Vienna Convention.

At the request of Kapoustin’s defence MPPO of RB allowed a visit of his father-in-law


Under these circumstances it cannot be accepted that all the necessary health and humane
measures permissible by law have not be applied to the accused KAPOUSTIN.

The standpoint of SCPO on the question for changing the presence securing measure
against the accused KAPOUSTIN was set out in reference No 3097/95.

The standpoint of SCPO on the question for changing the presence securing measure
against the accused KAPOUSTIN set out in reference No 3097/95, dated dec. 6, 1996 is
negative taking into consideration the grounds as per Art. 152, para 1, PPC i.e. the high
degree of public (social) danger of this deed - embezzlement of especially large amounts
which consists an extremely grave case.

As it is known the accused Kapoustin concealed from the preliminary investigation by

going abroad, which made it necessary to ask for his extradition from Germany observing
the rules of the European Convention for Extradition (State Gazette 8,9/95) which
delayed considerably the investigation.

Under these circumstances there is no reason for hanging the presence securing measure
“detention under custody” taken against the accused Kapoustin.
We do not discuss because of the impossible execution the demand of Michael Kapoustin
to be released from arrest to continue his work as an executive director of Life Choice
Int. AD thus enabling him to give back the money to the depositors.

In considering the foregoing and by virtue of Articles 180 – 183 PPC,


[7] I reject the claim of the defence of the accused Michael Kapoustin to change
the presence securing measure “detention under custody” under investigation
case No 195/95 as per the schedule (register) of NIS as being ungrounded,
unlawful and unjustified.

I confirm the ruling of Oct. 1st, 1996 under correspondence No 3097/95 of SCPO as being
motivated, grounded and lawful.

A copy of the present ruling to be sent for information and execution to NIS – 03, to
SCPO and to the defence of the accused Kapoustin – attorney Plamen Stoilov.

(signature and seal)
(Pl. Tzankov)

For the veracity of this translation:

Marianna Radoulova
Nov. 17, 1996



Ref. D-24-28-0022
Sofia Aug. 8, 1995
Postal Code 1040, Telex 2272
Telefax 801148


Further to your Ref. 24-28-0022/Aug. 7, 1995

Our stand point referring the questions posed is the following:

1. Regardless of the terminology adopted in the so-called “credence receipt” (meaning

“depositary receipt” – note of translator) the latter could be made equal to a
temporary contract for monetary deposit. In its essence the depositor submits a certain
amount of money over which the respective interest is calculated and it is monthly
payable (the interest – note of translator). They have used the term “dividend” but
similar monthly payments bear the character (nature) of an interest since by virtue of
Article 184 of the Law on Commerce Dividend is an annual payment to shareholders,
which is to be determined on the basis of the net profit of the company and the
respective number of the shares held. Similar contracts (agreements) at the time of
their conclusion were not qualified by law as “securities”. After the Law on
Securities, Stock Exchanges and Investment Companies was adopted (passed) similar
contracts are being already concluded in the range of investment contracts as per
Article 3 of the said law.

In the “credence receipt” (DR) it is set out that the amount collected through it is a
part of the company’s capital. Similar statement presupposes compliance with the due
order for collecting of capital as per the Law on Commerce, which in this instance is
not present. The Law provides only for issuing of temporary receipts (certificates) or
shares – after collecting of the primary capital of the company.

In the meaning of the aforesaid it could be assumed that Life Choice Int. AD carries
out banking activities in contradiction to the requirements (rules) of Instruction No 2
concerning the licenses issued by the Bulgarian People’s Bank. The “credence
(depositary) receipts” were issued in contradiction to the special Acts and as being
such they may be considered private documents, which differ from the determined by
the time of their issuing securities. Furthermore they were printed in contradiction to
the requirements of the Instruction for the Conditions and Order for Printing and
Control over Securities.

2. Commercial activities are regulated by Article 1 of the Law on Commerce in the

(Bulgarian – note of translator) legislation. The commercial transactions are not
specifically regulated and they are subordinate to the general regime of the Law on
Liabilities and Contracts. In view of effecting sales of “credence (depositary)
receipts” and other similar instruments by profession, the transactions with them as a
kind of commercial activities should be considered as “transactions” in the meaning
of the Law on Value Added Tax.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid we consider that the Tax Statement drafted against
Life Choice International AD is grounded and lawful.
(signed on behalf of the chief - note of translator)

For the veracity of this translation:

Marianna Radoulova
December 19, 1999
DIMITAR HRISTOV, DIMITAR BORISOV HRISTOV, Bulgarian citizen, a civil engineer -
pensioner, residing at 4, Strahil Voivoda St., Sofia, Bulgaria, identity personal number
3601216244 make an oath
1. What the intentions and partly the motives of the rulers are it becomes clear from an
article in newspaper "Capital' from April 17 - 23, 1995 under the heading: "The Tax
Inspectors Are Preparing Confiscation of the Proceeds of LifeChoice". The Inspectors
are Going to Receive a Larger Percentage When Abuses Are Discovered" [ see
Exhibit No. 3]. The article reads that the Ministry of Finance has elaborated a
mechanism for confiscation of the assets of LifeChoice International - AD. "This
mechanism has to be applied by the tax inspectors from the respective tax
department. In this instance it would be just a part of the proceeds to be used for
motivating the employees of the Ministry of Finance. The schedule to be applied
provides for seizure of the proceeds from the redeemable trust 1 receipts of
LifeChoice…Except for this the Finance Ministry projects to levy 18% VAT upon the
value of the RDR sold and the amount is also to be confiscated…In order to apply
this mechanism it is necessary for the tax inspectors to prepare a Statement of
Conclusion on the basis of the tax inspection of LifeChoice effected. Relying on it the
manager of BNB2 has to issue a penal ruling by virtues of Article 58 of the Law on
Banking and Credit Activities. In order to effect the measures for collecting of the
said amounts, it is necessary to seize the accounts of LifeChoice…"

2. By an Order for Seizure of the National Investigative Service (NIS) dated December
29, 1995 [see Exhibit No. 2], signed by Stefcho Georgiev, a Defendant under the
above captioned actions, all movable and immovable property of LifeChoice

In the Bulgarian translation of the depositary receipts the word "trust" is used in stead of "depositary" -
note of translator

BNB - Bulgarian National Bank - note of translator
International - AD is seized, although the penal case is brought against Mr. Kapoustin
personally and not against the company itself. The assets of the company are still
seized thus obstructing and completely ending its activities. For instance, in the free
trade area of Dragoman there are 69,984 bottles of Blender's Pride whisky of the
Canadian company Seagrams; 66,260 bottles of Vodka Nikolay of the same company
for the total value of not less than 1,000,000,000 (one billion) old undenominated
3. The attitude of the Prosecution towards the investors became clear when we, four
investors decided to go to Mr. Mario Stoyanov, a supervising prosecutor in the penal
proceeding against Mr. Kapoustin in Bulgaria and a Defendant under the above
captioned actions, to give us a permission to visit Mr. Kapoustin.3 The purpose of out
visit was to seek a way out of this situation created by the rulers at that time, by their
agencies and instrumentalities, including the police, investigative service and
prosecution and later - the court. It did not sound well when prosecutor Stoyanov
stated before us: "I am not going to let anyone visit that Ukrainian gypsy… And what
will Interpol say if Kapoustin is not convicted to 30 years of imprisonment, when
Interpol will fulfil another request like this one?…"
4. Despite this, the installation did not start working because the investigative service
and prosecution seized it (Seizure Order No. 7171 dated March 20, 1996 of NIS),
after that it intentionally left it without guard. According to a letter of notification Ref.
No 6600328 dated August 26, 1997 of MDB - Tzarimir, the funds for security of the
site were withheld and the installation was left to the mercy of fate. It was depleted
and completely destroyed, an excellent, so needed and useful for our country
economic investment worth millions of dollars, for which it was projected to return
within 6 months only and to bring us millions of dollars net profit, almost at the
directions of investogator Georgiev and prosecutor Stoyanov was depleted and
completely ruined just to prove that we have made no investments in anything and to
make us out a financial pyramid.

5. It is worth to let you know Your Honours the following as well. How did it happen
that after we spent almost $ 1,000,000 (one million) USD to construct and to equip
our OFFICE - CENTRE of the company at 3, "Krakra" St. (only the Simulator
installed there is worth $ 300,000 USD) and after we, the investors and the
shareholders of LifeChoice International - AD, i.e. - the owners themselves of this
centre were thrown out from it like dogs in the street by the omnipresent prosecution
and investigation and by their vanguard the red police. The premises were given to be
used by a political party ruling at that time - the Social - Democratic Party, a satellite
of the ruling coalition United Democratic Forces by virtue of an Order No. RD - 04-
003 dated April 15, 1999 of the District Governor of Sofia eng. V. Marinchev. A copy
of the Order and of documents in connection with this act I submit in the Bulgarian
and in the English languages [see Exhibit No. 5].
6. Mr. Michael Kapoustin, was never subpoenaed at the official addresses of his offices
in Sofia, at addresses in Greece known, such as Kavala, 14-V, "Plio" Str. and Kavala,
16, "Yadras" Str. Neither at his address in Canada, Vancouver, Alberni Str. 1166 and
phone numbers 662-37-71 and 669-98-28. Although addresses and telephone numbers
This is during the time when Mr. Kapoustin is under arrest - note of translator
in Austin, Texas and St. John, Antigua were known, Mr. Kapoustin was never
subpoenaed there either. There is a Treaty for Legal Assistance on Civil and Criminal
Matters between Bulgaria and Greece promulgated in State Gazette No 49/80. There
is no duly formed and served to Mr. Kapoustin subpoena in compliance with this
7. In support of this statement I have available a copy of a letter from the Ministry of
Justice (at that time Ministry of Justice and Legal Eurointegration) to Attorney
Lukanov with outgoing Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 dated December 15,1999, which on
page 2, paragraph 2 reads: "In the Ministry of Justice and Legal Eurointegration there
is no correspondence for subpoenaing of Mr. Michael Kapoustin within the period of
time October 26, 1995 - September 2, 1996. [see Exhibit No. 7]
8. The allegation that Mr. Michael Kapoustin created a pyramidal structure in Bulgaria
is not true, because at the SCC there are 61 files available with bank documents and
statements from bank accounts certifying unequivocally that the sums invested by
different Bulgarian citizens do not cover the expenses made by the company for
consumables, electricity, water, rents, etc. These files have been intentionally kept by
the investigative authorities and were submitted to the court only in February 2000,
after the defence had finished examining the materials under the case. In a judicial
hearing in February 2001 Attorney Lukanov found them out only by chance between
all the files, which were on the table of the justices. The reason to withhold them can
be only one - they prove Mr. Kapoustin completely innocent. According to data from
these files, for the period of time June 1993 - April 1994 in the bank account of
LifeChoice International - AD for BGL with IBID4, not taking into consideration the
funds in foreign currency, there were 16,900,566.85 BGL before the initiation of
collecting investments from Bulgarian citizens through distribution of RDR. To say
nothing about the numerous profitable projects of the company mentioned above.
9. There is a complaint filed with the European Court of Human Rights wit Reg. No. PN
6650. It refers to the Plaintiff's rights for defence having been violated by investigator
Stefcho Georgiev. Concerning this violation there is an official opinion from the
Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office (SCaPO) [see Exhibit No. 8], which on p. 1,
paragraph 3 reads: "From the reference required from the Sofia City Prosecutor's
Office it is made clear that it is true that the supervising prosecutor M. Stoynaov has
not given a permission to disclose information under the case. If it is accepted that a
perpetration has been really committed under Article 284, §1 of the CC5, in this
instance according to the provisions of Article 80, § 1, item 3, CC the statutory period
provided for by law has expired, and except for this, it is a light offence and the
immunity the investigator has according to Article 70 of the Constitution of RB and
the Law on Judicial Authority, does not allow seeking liability for such a
10. The lawsuits filed by us were broadly discussed in the Bulgarian press, any comments
were made - all newspapers on December6 24, 2000; also articles in newspaper
IBID - International Bank for Investment and Development - note of translator

CC - Criminal Code - note of translator

Error - should be October - note of translator
"Novinar" on December 6, 2000; newspaper "Banker" - January 6-12, 2001; "Capita;"
- January 13-19, 2001; "Trud" - January 14, 2001; "Cash" - March 16, 2001; "24
Hours" - March 16, 2001, "Sega" - March 14, 2001; "Trud" - March 14, 2001. And in
newspaper "Standart" from January 18, 20012 a short announcement was published
under the heading: "They Are Organising a Joint Committee against Michael
Kapoustin". It reads that this is an anouncement made by the Spokesman of the
Foreign Ministry Mr. Radko Vlaikov. "The joint commission will be guided by a
representative of the Finance Ministry…" [see Exhibit No. 10].

Article 69 § (1), Criminal Procedure Code states a defence counsel shall be appointed by an accused [the
Applicant]. Further Article 72 § (2) of the Code specifically expresses that defense counsel may only be
replaced "at the request or with the consent of the accused". At no time had the Applicant requested the
replacement of his attorneys retained by LCIAD [Mila Popova Bogdanova, Plamen Yalnasov, et al] and
acting as well on the Applicant's direct behalf in all matters in Bulgaria, neither can an attorney voluntarily
withdraw or be removed from acting on the Applicant's behalf, Article 71 of the Code reads: "The defence
counsel may not renounce the accepted defence, except where it becomes impossible to carry out his or her
obligations for reasons beyond his or her control. In the latter case the defence counsel shall be obliged to
notify the accused in due time." Alternatively Article 70 § (3) of the Code considers where a "respective
authority shall be obliged to appoint" a defense counsel, such an occasion arising when, inter alia, a
possible punishment of not less than 10 years; an accused does not speak Bulgarian; the accused has
physical or mental disabilities or the case [investigation or inquiry] is to be conducted in his absence. It is
obligatory under Article 21 of the Law on Advocacy (Zakon za Advokaturata) in such an instance that the
attorney be appointed not by the investigation, police officer (sledovatel) Georgiev, as is the case under the
Applicant's instance, but rather by the respective [Sofia] Bar Assocoation (Sofiiska Advokatska Kolegia -
SAK). Upon the foregoing facts, and others, the Applicant did subsequently on 22 December 1999 lodge a
complaint of criminal misconduct and malfeasance against Advocate Stoycheva - Gaganishka, which reads:

"I formally lodge this protest with you and plead to you as the competent
review body responsible to investigate and rule upon the procedural,
professional and ethical conduct of its members. I request an investigation
of Ms. Villiana Stoycheva - Gaganishka, attorney at law with last known
address 5 Trapezitza St., and home address 14, Sava Mihailov St., who had
accepted inappropriately and outside of her professional competence an
appointment as my "official defence counsel" in November of 1995.
Attorney Gaganishka clearly assumed a responsibility to act on my behalf,
without my knowledge or consent and did so with a clear intention only to
facilitate my arrest and not to fulfill her ethical obligations to me. The
general details of her professional misconduct are cited in the attached
letter as forwarded to her by registered post.

I am sure there is no need to remind the respected body of the Sofia Bar
Association of the professional conduct expected of its members as setout
in Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bulgaria. And the Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers adopted by the Attorney Act [law on
Advocacy - Zakon za advokaturata] of Bulgaria and cited in the Eight
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders on 7 September 1990. Subsequently endorsed by the General
Assembly in Resolution 45/121 of 14 December 1990. Most particularly I
draw your attention to Article 6, 9, 13 and 15 and the disciplinary
proceedings cited in Articles 26 through 29 of that resolution which are
directly applicable to the protest filed.

In addition I submit a copy of the Notice to Her HonourJudge Mitkova of

the circumstances surrounding my case wherein I have cited that there
existed a total absence of any defence as a consequence of the refusal of
the setout therein attorneys to challenge state officials who abused my
rights in obtaining my arrest, extradition and allowing subsequent
mistreatment while here.

I cannot ascertain whether their conduct is a consequence of fear,

malfeasance, conflicting interests, disinterest or incompetence. In either
instance their professional ethics should have required them to resign from
my case. Instead they have severely damaged my defence. Accordingly I
seek through your respected organization redress against those

To date no action has been taken by any respective Government authority.