Page 1 of 10

From: MKapoustin [MKapoustin@Hotmail.com]

Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 4:51 PM
To: 'albania@centrum-group.com'
Subject: Albanian citizens Sofia Prison_Law

Attachments: EC Convention On Validity International Criminal Judgments - Transfer.pdf; 2004.11.09

Canada FA to BGL Protest_Page_1.jpg; 2004.11.09 Canada FA to BGL Protest_Page_2.jpg; 2005.01.17
US Ambassadorr.doc
Dear First Secretary Mara,
Your citizens have asked that I write you on their behalf and provide the information which they
consider relevant. They have also given me the freedom to provide my own observations. I will
do the best that I can under the circumstances.
In advance I apologize for any typographical errors.
Also, I have been asked to express to you their collective gratitude for the interest you are
exhibiting. The citizens of Albanian, as I and the other foreign citizens here, are each hoping for
diplomatic solutions that will result in (1) our equal access and treatment under Bulgarian
national law [something that does not exist] and (2) our eventual repatriation with the families
we have left behind, for your citizens even a prison in Albanian near their wives, children and
parents is preferable to remaining in an unsympathetic and prejudiced Bulgaria.
Your [Albanian] citizens, as all other foreign citizens here having fines, are routinely refused
their transfer requests [there are some 63 foreigners, mostly Turkish and the next are the
Albanians and Macedonian Albanians] or are routinely denied access to judicial procedures
[parole] only because of their Albanian nationality and their property status – this discrimination
is explained to your citizens as a result the money fines they cannot pay and their Albanian
nationality [there are 23 foreign prisoners who should be free and several are citizens of
Albanian].
The First Secretary must also consider the fact of fear, his citizens are afraid to confront
injustices. They feel threatened by the Sofia prison administration and so are afraid to use the
legal procedures and other remedies open to them. As a result the discrimination and abuses
remain concealed.
Also the First Secretary should consider the facts of the level of education among the prisoners
and their activities before entering prison, most being truck or bus drivers. It is also as a result of
this that there is little effective collective action.
A brief explanation of the procedures which may be of interest to the First Secretary and
affecting the rights of Albanian citizens are the following;
1) Once the Albanian Citizen is Sentenced

According to Article 376§4 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure, once an

Albanian citizen is criminally sentenced the collection of any “fine” or court costs” is
transferred by the sentencing criminal court to the Bulgarian Agency for State
Takings;

2) The Bulgarian Agency for State Takings – Refusals to Issue a Decision on

Collection of the Fine or Court Cost

The Bulgarian Agency for State Takings has jurisdiction only in Bulgaria. It therefore
has no policy or practice for collecting debts outside of Bulgaria. The Prosecutor
and the Prison are no legally competent to collect the fines or court costs of
Albanian citizens and are not permitted by law to attempt to coerce this money
by denying citizens of Albania their legal rights.

That said, it is a fact that such coercion exists [see below section on transfers
and parole]

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 2 of 10

Officials at the Agency for State Takings [public executors] routinely refuse any
attempt at collecting money owned the Bulgarian State from non-resident Albanian
[foreign] citizens having no property or bank accounts in Bulgaria. The First
Secretary should remember that the cars and trucks of his citizens have also
been confiscated for the benefit of the Bulgarian State.

Agency Officials in fact refuse to do anything at all except issue letters that can be
paraphrased as follows “the Albanian citizen has no property or bank accounts
in Bulgaria and it is therefore impossible to end the proceedings [for
collection] against the Albanian citizens”. This oxymoron is an objective
manifestation of the unreasonable unwillingness for Officials for the Bulgarian
Agency for State Takings to issue a decision that writes, to paraphrase “the amount
is uncollectible, we therefore end the proceedings against the Albanian Citizen
according to Article 187§4 of the Bulgarian Tax Procedure Code” [see below].

From the facts and years of correspondence it becomes obvious that unless
diplomatic or legal pressure is brought to bear on Bulgaria’s Government Minister for
Finance - Agency for State Takings – that it will be impossible otherwise for
imprisoned citizens of Albania to force Agency Officials to meet their obligations to
Albanian citizens id est to issue a Ruling on the “uncollectability” of the fine.

3) Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General Refuses Transfer Requests – On Account of

Agency for State Takings non-action

When Albanian citizens request transfer under the Convention for the Transfer of
Sentenced Persons, the Office of Bulgaria’s Prosecutors General – Filchev –
Supreme Prosecutor for the Republic of Bulgaria, refuses to process the transfer
applications on the grounds that the Albanian citizen has not produced documents
from the Agency for State Takings that the fine and court costs have been
extinguished.

Also, when Albanian citizens request that the penalty “fine” be transferred to Albania
together with the penalty “depravation of liberty”, the reply of the Supreme
Prosecutor is the following, to paraphrase “the Republic of Bulgaria has no
practice to request other states collect debts owed to the Bulgaria State,
therefore your request for a transfer procedure is denied”.

4) Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General Issues Instructions to the Sofia Prison

Administration – No Albanian [Foreign] citizen is be recommend for Parole if
not having Paid the Penalty “Fine” – Again on Account of Agency for State
Takings non-action

According to Bulgarian national law, Albanian citizens are to be released on parole

once having served half their sentences [see below Article 70 Bulgarian Criminal
Code; Article 17 Bulgarian Law for the Execution of Punishments; and Article 415
and the following Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure].

However Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General has issued a written instruction to Sofia

Prison Officials that prison Officials are no to recommend any Albanian citizen for
parole if he has not paid the Bulgarian State. Any Official doing so will be subject to
administrative prosecution and penalties [this according to prison officials].

The First Secretary will discover that (1) there is no legal provision in the Bulgarian

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 3 of 10

Criminal Code that requires money obligations be paid by a prisoner prior to release
on Parole, and; (2) that Bulgarian citizens are not required to pay fines or court costs
as a condition of their parole.

As a result citizens of Albania are required to serve sentences 2 times that of

Bulgarian citizens having the same conviction id est A Bulgarian citizen, first time
offender with a 10 years sentence will be free in approximately 5 years. An Albanian
citizen with the same 10 year sentence will not be freed by Bulgarian Prosecutors
and Prison Officials until the end of his 10th year. The result is that a citizen of
Albania has an effective sentence of 20 years.

request transfer under the Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, the
Office of Bulgaria’s Prosecutors General – Filchev – Supreme Prosecutor for the
Republic of Bulgaria

5) Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General has Issued A Directive to the Sofia Prison

Administration and Sofia City Prosecutors that – No Albanian [Foreign] citizen
is be released on Parole

There is a disturbing development since December 2004. No foreign citizen has

been released on parole at half sentence, paid fine or no paid fine. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that Prosecutors General Filchev has issued instructions to his
prosecutors, Sofia City judges and Sofia Prison Administrators that non-Bulgarian not
resident in Bulgaria are to be paroled. Albanian [foreign] nationals are not to have
any rights under Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code.

A number of Ambassadors and consular officials have without success attempted to

meet with Prosecutors General Filchev, this includes the Ambassador for Canada. As
a result it is thus far impossible to ascertain why Albanian and other foreign citizens
are to be denied their legal rights under Bulgarian criminal and civil law.

6) Your citizens’ rights to transfer and parole are affected by the following Bulgarian
national laws and treaties.

a) I am sure you have the European Convention on the Transfer of

Sentenced Persons and will not bother with that here.

b) The Bulgarian procedure for transfer is regulated by Chapter 22 Section

III of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure it reads;

“Section III.
Delivery pursuant to an International Treaty of Persons Sentenced to
Imprisonment for Serving the Term in the State, Whose Citizens They Are
(New section, SG, No. 52/1980)
Competent Body
Art. 442. (1) (Amend., SG, No. 50/1995; suppl., No. 64/1997) The delivery of
persons sentenced by a court of the Republic of Bulgaria for sustaining the
punishment in the state, whose citizens they are and the acceptance of
Bulgarian citizens sentenced by a foreign court for sustaining the
punishment in the Republic of Bulgaria, shall be decided by the Chief
Prosecutor by an agreement with the competent body of the other state,
where there is a consent in writing of the convicted.
(2) The decision for delivery or acceptance of the convicted may be taken

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 4 of 10

even after the enforcement of the punishment has commenced.

Application of the Provisions of the Section
Art. 449. (3) (Amend., SG, No. 50/1995) The provisions of this section shall
apply to the extent, to which an international treaty under which the
Republic of Bulgaria is a party, provides otherwise.
COMMENTS
As you can see there is no requirement for fines to be paid prior to any transfer of
a convicted foreign citizen.
You can also see that the deciding legal authority here is the Bulgarian
Prosecutors General Filchev, and that the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs
and Minster for Justice are not legally competent to interfere with this authority.
The result is that while Bulgaria has signed the relevant treaties to which Bulgaria
and Albania [and Canada] are parties, the Prosecutors General for Bulgaria is not
required to observe these treaty bona fides. Furthermore, the prosecutor cannot
be instructed to observe a treaty by the Ministers for Justice or Foreign Affairs.
The above legal construction id est the power, lack of accountability and oversight
of Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General Filchev leads to the Prosecutors General for
Bulgaria determining Bulgarian foreign policy and unilaterally deciding when and
how certain international treaties signed by Bulgaria are to be implemented, if at
all.
To give you a sense of current Bulgarian external policy I have the pleasure to
provide the Embassy of Albania and the First Secretary a copy of a recent
Diplomatic Note filed on my behalf by the Government of Canada and protesting
the Bulgarian refusal to transfer me or to parole me. This is provided as 2
separate attachments for pages 1 and pages 2.
As can be seen from the wording of the Convention on Transfer of Sentenced
Persons and Bulgaria’s Criminal Code of Procedure cited above, the payment
of fines or court costs is not mentioned as a precondition for transfer.
However, and more importantly, European treaty law has addressed the question
for the transferring of criminal fines as follows. I provide you with the following
texts as attachments in PDF [Adobe Acrobat] text
files;
c) European Convention On Validity of International Criminal
Judgments – recently acceded to Bulgaria.

The relevant text reading as follows:

“Part II - Enforcement of European criminal judgments
Section 1 - General provisions
a - General conditions of enforcement
Article 2
This part is applicable to:
a sanctions involving deprivation of liberty;
b fines or confiscation;
c disqualifications.
Article 3
1 A Contracting State shall be competent in the cases and under the conditions provided for
in this Convention to enforce a sanction imposed in another Contracting State which is
enforceable in the latter State.
2 This competence can only be exercised following a request by the other Contracting State.
“
COMMENT
I am unaware if Albania is party to this treaty. However my information is that it is.
If so, then clearly the Government of Albania may according to Article 3 of the
abovecited Convention request the transfer of its citizen under the European
Convention for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons also advise the

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 5 of 10

Government of Bulgaria Prosecutors General Filchev that Albanian courts will

enforce the penalty of “fine” if possible and collectable and request the transfer
of the fine according to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the International
Validity of Criminal Judgments.
However, as I had previously mentioned, Bulgaria’s Prosecutors General Filchev
has no practice or political will to permit Albania or any other European Council
member state the possibility to collect fines from Albanian nationals in Albania.
The absurdity of this is apparent from the fact that your citizens are all arrested “in
transit” and have no property in Bulgaria. From this the unlawful and unreasonable
coercive intent of the Bulgarian Prosecutors becomes. Albanian citizens will be
required to stay in Bulgarian prisons and Bulgaria [see below Article 39a of the
Bulgarian Law for Foreigners in Bulgaria].
d) Article 187§1 item 4 Bulgarian Tax Procedure Code reads;

“Termination of the proceedings

Art. 187.(1) The proceeding for collecting the public takings shall be terminated with an order
by the authority for the enforcement:
1. when the liability and the expenses made till the date of conducting the tender are entirely
redeemed; when the payment is non cash it shall be considered as implemented with the receiving
of the sum in the account pointed out by the authority for enforcement;
2. when the act with which the public taking is established is announced as null, void or repealed;
3. when the diseased debtor does not have heirs or all heirs have refused the heritage;
4. when the authority for enforcement has assessed that the taking is uncollectible after all
execution techniques are exhausted and the expenses for conducting such actions are
economically ungrounded;
5. when the act for establishing the obligation is changed with a decision of a supreme
authority or by the court and at the undertaken enforcement a sum has been collected equal
to or exceeding the sum of the liability, according to the change; in this case the authority for
the enforcement shall order the returning of the overpaid sum to the amount defined in the
decision for change after which the proceeding shall be terminated;
6. in other cases provided in this code.
(2) In the cases of para 1 the authority for enforcement shall lift officially the imposed distraints and
restraints.
(3) The order shall be issued in 7 days period after:
1. receiving the payment and reflecting it in the corresponding account - in the cases of para 1, it. 1;
2. the notification of the authority for enforcement with an attached certified copy of the decision for
announcing the voidness, the nullifying or the change of the act;
3. the receiving of official information about lack of heirs or information accompanied with a
certificate for heirs and a refusal made by all the heirs;
4. occurrence of the conditions and the prerequisites provided in para 1, item 4.

COMMENTS
It should be apparent to the First Secretary that according to the abovecited Tax
Code of Procedure, the Bulgarian Agency for State Taking can extinguish the
uncollectible money debts of Albanian citizens; this includes fines in criminal case.
However, as the First Secretary has seen, there is no will on the part of Agency
Officials to extinguish the debts of non-Bulgarians, the reasons for this are
unclear. But since there is no foundation in law for refusing the requests of
Albanian citizens then obviously the decision is political policy and practice.
From the above is clear that the question of if a fine is “collectable” from a citizen
of Albania is one to be addressed under the Bulgarian Tax Procedure Code [see
below] and not the Bulgarian Criminal Code. This Mr. First Secretary is significant
in that Bulgaria’s Prosecutors General (Filchev) cannot legally demand the
collection or payment of a fine as a condition for a citizen of Albania to be
transferred.

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 6 of 10

e) The First Secretary raised Questions as to what is the Bulgarian

authority is legally responsible for the collection and extinguishing of
criminal fines inter alia is the prosecutor, prison or court responsible?
I provide the First Secretary an extract from Bulgarian Criminal Code
of Procedure and how according to Articles 308 and 375 of the
Bulgarian Criminal Code money debt is separated from criminal law
and the jurisdiction of the prosecutor and prison;

“Signing and Pronouncement of Sentence

Art. 308. (1) The sentence shall be pronounced by the presiding judge after it is signed by all
of the members of the court.
(2) (Amend., SG, No. 29/1982) Where the drafting of the reasons has been deferred, the presiding
judge shall only pronounce the operative part, signed by all members of the court. The signing of the
reasons by the court assessors shall be mandatory, where a reservation has been expressed upon
signing the sentence.
(3) The reservation shall be noted down upon signing the sentence, respectively the operative part,
and shall be exposed in writing within the term under Art. 306.
(4) (New, SG, No. 52/1980); amend., No. 50/1995) Where imprisonment has been imposed on a
citizen of a another state, which the Republic of Bulgaria has an agreement on extradition for
sustaining conviction, the court shall inform the convicted of the possibility to apply to the
Chief Prosecutor proposing to be extradited to serve the conviction in the state, whose
citizen he or she is.
Acts in Connection with the Enforcement of Verdicts and Rulings
Art. 375. (1) (Suppl., SG, No. 50/2003) A copy of the verdict, pursuant to which the defendant has
been acquitted or released from criminal responsibility or from sustaining the sentence, and a copy
of the ruling on dismissal of the criminal proceedings shall be submitted to the respective bodies for
returning of the seized documents, valuables and other objects, and for removal of the registration
with the police. Where a measure of insurance has been reversed, a copy of the sentence or the
ruling shall be submitted to the respective bodies.
(2) (Amend. and suppl., SG, No. 25/1982) A copy of the sentence by which the defendant has been
sentenced to sustain a certain punishment, shall be submitted to the prosecutor for execution.
(3) (New, SG, No. 28/1982; amend., No. 21/1998, No. 50/2003) Where confiscation of certain things
or seizure of things has been ordered by the sentence pursuant to Art. 53 of the Penal Code, the
court shall submit a copy of the sentence to the Government Collections Agency for execution. The
Government Collections Agency shall inform the court about the seizure of the taken away and
confiscated things.
(4) (New, SG, No. 28/1982) Where with the sentence a fine has been imposed or
compensations, court costs and fees have been awarded, the court shall issue a writ of
execution and shall submit it to the respective body for execution.
COMMENTS
Since 2000, the “respective body for execution” [Article 375§4 of the Bulgarian
Criminal Code of Procedure] as quoted above is the Bulgarian Agency of State
Takings, and not the Sofia Prison or the Bulgarian Prosecutors Office.
Bulgarian national law [Law for State Collections] requires the Agency for State
Takings to collect all sums owed to the Bulgarian State. This includes fines and
court costs imposed in criminal judgments.
Over the last 2 years, at my suggestion, a number of Albanian citizens and other
attempted to rely on the abovecited Article 187§1 item 4 in connection with 187§3
item 4 of the Bulgarian Tax Procedure Code – id est – by sworn declarations
and Albanian court documents to establish they have no income or property with
which to settle the fine. And to petition at the same time for a declaration of
“uncollectible” for the Bulgarian Agency for State Takings.
The Director for the Bulgarian Agency for State Takings refuses to accept such
declarations and Albanian judicial documents to be adequate proof,
notwithstanding that Bulgaria and Albania are both parties to The Hague

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 7 of 10

Conventions on Private and Judicial Documents.

As a result, in 2002 I filed on behalf of the foreign citizens having “fines” a
complaint with (1) the Minister for Finance, and (2) the Minister for Justice –
Department for International and (3) the Supreme Prosecutors Office for the
Republic of Bulgaria.
My complaint precipitated an Official Enquiry by the Bulgarian Ministry for Justice
– International Affairs Department. The results of this enquiry were the following
(1) According to Bulgaria Supreme Cassation Prosecutor Mr. Petkov, fines are
themselves not an obstruction to parole or transfer of a foreign citizen. However,
Bulgarian national law Article 39a of the Law for Foreigners in the Republic of
Bulgaria [See below] forbids foreign citizens from departing Bulgaria if they have
any unpaid debt to the State or to a Bulgarian citizen.
Also, in the same and other letters, Supreme Prosecutor Petkov writes that fines
are not obstructions to parole.
However, when explaining why Albanian citizens cannot be transferred or paroles,
the Supreme Prosecutors Office and Prosecutors General for Bulgaria Filchev rely
on another Bulgarian national law that “administratively arrests” foreign citizens in
Bulgaria for money debt as follows.
f) Articles 39a and 187§1 item 4 Bulgarian Law for Foreigner in
Bulgaria reads;

“Art. 39a. (New, SG 42/01) The compulsory administrative measures imposed to the
foreigners according to this law are:
1. revoking the right of stay in the Republic of Bulgaria;
2. compulsory taking to the border of the Republic of Bulgaria;
3. expulsion;
4. prohibition to enter the Republic of Bulgaria;
5. prohibition to leave the Republic of Bulgaria.

Art. 43. (Amend., SG 42/01) (1) Prohibition to leave the Republic of Bulgaria shall be imposed
to a foreigner who:
1. has been convicted by an enacted sentence and has not served the imposed
imprisonment;
2. (amend., SG 37/03) has liabilities over 5000 levs to corporate bodies or individuals
established by court order and which have not been duly secured;
3. (Amend., SG 45/02) has liquid and exigible liabilities to the state of over 5000 levs, or who
is a member of the control or managing bodies of corporate bodies who have liquid and
exigible liabilities to the state of over 5000 levs which are not duly secured.
(2) The measures under para 1 shall also apply to foreigners who also have Bulgarian
citizenship.”

COMMENTS
The Bulgarian Law for Foreigners in Bulgaria is cited by Bulgarian prosecutors
whenever they are challenged on the reasons for refusing citizens of Albanian
their possibility of transfer or legal right to parole. Bulgarian prosecutors insist that
imprisonment of Albanian citizens must continue until the financial debts are
settled with the State of Bulgaria, only then that a citizen of Albanian can leave the
territory of Bulgaria. Therefore transfer or parole are impossible since id est
transfer or parole would require the foreign citizen to depart Bulgaria and that is no
legally allowed.
Article 39a of the Law for Foreigners in Bulgaria is a form of “arrest
[deprivation of liberty]” sine die and for debt without due judicial process or
the right of appeal.
The above Bulgarian national law, policies and practices contract major Articles of
the European Convention on Fundamental and Human Rights, in particular Article

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 8 of 10

5 – no arrest without legal cause or procedure – debt to the state of Bulgaria not a
crime subject to deprivation of liberty id est any form of imposed obstruction of the
right to return home and to cohesion of the family is a deprivation of an otherwise
guaranteed liberty and Article 1 and Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the ECHFR –
freedom of movement and no imprisonment for debt.
g) Articles 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code – Right of Albania
Citizens to Parole reads;

Section II.
Release Ahead of Term
“Art. 70. (1) (Amend., SG 153/98) The court can rule a probationary release ahead of term for
the remaining part of the punishment of imprisonment regarding a convicted with exemplary
conduct and honest attitude to the work, and who has proven his reformation and has served
actually no less than half of the imposed punishment.”

COMMENTS
As the First Secretary can see, the right to parole after half sentence relies only on
the Albanian citizens conduct while in prison, and not on paying a fine. Therefore
the refusal to allow citizens of Albanian to be paroled is political and discriminatory
having nothing to do with law.
The procedure of parole is governed by two step procedure as follows:
Step 1 On a citizen of Albania having completed half his sentence the
Sofia prison administration is required by law to submit his case to
the court - see below Article 17 Law on the Execution of
Punishments - the First Secretary asked to recall that all
citizens of Albania [foreigners] are refused this procedure;
OR
Step 1 The Citizen of Albania petitions the Prosecutors Office for a judicial
review of his case on the question of Parole;
Step 1A The prosecutor accepts or rejects the request – the First
Secretary asked to recall that all requests by citizens of Albania
are rejected due to the nationality and property status of the
prisoner;
Step 2 The Sofia city court determines if the citizen of Albania will pose a
future threat to Bulgarian society if he were to be released. This is
impossible since foreigners are deported and to denied reentry to
Bulgaria for an indefinite term. The Court may refuse parole ONLY
IF IT IS REPORTED THAT THE PRISONER HAS
DEMONSTRATED ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.
h) Articles 17 of the Bulgarian Law for the Execution of Punishments
Criminal Code – proposals for parole reads;

Art. 17. (1) (amend. SG 28/82) At the prisons and the reformatories shall be established
commissions, comprised by: chairman – the chief of the prison or reformatory, and members
– judge from the county court, deputy chiefs, representative of the supervision commission
and the psychologist of the prison or the reformatory.
(2) (amend. SG 62/02) In the commission shall be included also the inspectors for social activity and
reforming work, when the situation with the prisoners in their group is considered.
(3) In the commissions at the reformatories shall be included also a representative of the regional
commission for fight against anti-social acts of minor and under aged.
(4) At the sessions of the commission a prosecutor from the regional prosecutor’s office shall be
present.
(5) (amend. SG 62/02) The commissions shall take decisions about:
1. the change of the regime for execution of the penalty to a lighter or heavier within the limits of the

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 9 of 10

initial regime, determined by the court;

2. proposals to the court for change to a heavier the initial defined regime for execution of the
penalty;
3. proposals to the court for early liberation or early liberation on probation;
4. movement of deprived from liberty by the order of art. 12a, para 3 and 6;

i) Articles 415 and the following of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of

Procedure – Proposals for Parole reads;

Chapter twenty one.

PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE
PUNISHMENTS
Section I.
Conditional Release
Proposals for Conditional Release
Art. 415. (1) Proposals for conditional release under Articles 70 and 71 of the Penal Code may
make:
1. The regional prosecutor, respectively the military prosecutor, in the place of execution of
the punishment;
2. The Committee under Art. 17 of the Execution of Punishments Act.
Court to Proceed with the Proposal
Art. 416. The proposal shall be considered:
1. By the regional, respectively the military court in the place of execution of the punishment in the
cases of Art. 415, para 1;
2. By the district court in the place of execution of the punishment in the cases of Art. 415,
para 2.
Sitting on Proposal
Art. 417. (1) (Amend., SG, No. 70/1999) The court shall sit on the proposal in a sitting of a single
judge.
(2) The participation of the prosecutor and of the president of the Committee under Art. 17 of the
Execution of Punishments Act shall be mandatory.
(3) The attendance of the convicted shall be mandatory.
(4) After the gathering and the examination of the evidence are completed, the court shall give the
floor to the body, which has made the proposal.
(5) The prosecutor shall give a conclusion, if the proposal does not come from him or her.
(6) The convicted shall speak last.
Court Ruling
Art. 418. (1) The court shall rule by a reasoned ruling.
(2) The prosecutor may file a protest against the court ruling declaring conditional release, which
shall be proceeded with by order of Chapter Sixteen.
(3) The ruling rejecting release on licence shall not be subject to appeal.
IN CONCLUSION
It is apparent that representatives of Bulgaria’s prosecution and
administrators of the Sofia Prison will persist in their unmotivated refusals to
transfer or parole citizens of Albania and other countries. These Officials for the
Republic Bulgaria do not consider binding on them the treaty preambles of the
Convention [as mentioned by the Government of Canada] for transfer or the
positive obligations and negative restrictions against discrimination as found in the
Council of Europe Charter.
It is documented fact admitted to in writing by the Minister for Justice, that
Albanian citizens and other non-Bulgaria ARE NOT TO HAVE EQUALITY IN
THE APPLICATION OF BULGARIAN NATIONAL LAWS.
Mr. First Secretary, the Bulgarian Officials responsible for these abuses of

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005

 Page 10 of 10

Albanian citizens and others will not act to end them so long as there is absent
diplomatic cooperation among those Council of Europe member states or
observing states whose citizens are suffering needlessly. Cooperation between
representatives of member states appears the only hope to ending Bulgarian
policies and practice that discriminate according to nationality and are inconsistent
with international and national law.
COMMENTS – WHAT CAN BE DONE
First Secretary Mara, one of the greatest difficulties I and representatives for the
Government of Canada encounter are junior Bulgaria Officials who refuse to
provide answers or when answering attempt to avoid being concrete. It is
impossible to formulate a legal or diplomatic response in the absence of any
concrete answers.
Also there exists a culture of deception and concealment from one agency to
another, the Ministers for Justice and Finance receiving glowing reports from the
Sofia Prison and the Agency for State Takings when in fact nothing in those
reports is true. As a result the Ministers do not respond to the complaints and
defend complaints by relying on the facts fabricated in these reports.
I have found that when the Minister for Justice and Finance are confronted with
the facts and asked to investigate which representations are true, then thing get
done.
Proceeding on this and the relevant Bulgarian national laws I would think that the
first step of the Consulate would be to confirm the Orders, directives or
instructions issued by either the Minister for Justice or the Prosecutors General
that require prison officials and prosecutors to not apply certain national laws to
citizens of Albanian or to impose demands on citizens of Albania that are different
[and in some case impossible] from those imposed on citizens of Bulgaria
imprisoned in Bulgaria and abroad id est Bulgarian citizens in Canada or Greece
are not required [by Bulgaria’s prosecutor] to pay fines or courts costs prior to their
transfers to Bulgaria.
Also, to confront the Minister for Finance with the fact that his Director for Agency
for State Takings is refusing to issue Decisions on the collectibility of money from
citizens of Albania, and is therefore by misfeasance and omission unreasonably
and unlawfully denying citizens of Albania their treaty right to transfer and the legal
right to parole.
First Secretary Mara, please recall that discrimination according to nationality or
property status [the absence of the money needed to pay the fine] is unlawful both
internationally and according to Bulgarian national law.
I hope you found this helpful,
Sincerely,
Michael Kapoustin
PS Please feel free to contact the Canadian Embassy in Bucharest if you are of
the opinion they can give you some additional insight. Furthermore, the Turkish
Ambassador has been very active in this regard.
I also attach for you consideration a letter I wrote to the US Ambassador, and
respectfully request you advise me if a similar request to the Ambassador for
Albania would be appropriate.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005

file://D:\My Litigation\00 A4 DISCRIMNATION COMPLAINT\2005.00 Letters to Ambass... 2/7/2005