South Ossetian expert Inal Pliev has commented on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which announced on Thursday that there were no reasons for accepting several lawsuits in which the residents of Tskhinval accused Georgian armed forces of considering life-threatening actions:
I hope that the information spread by other media is incorrect or incomplete. Because when reading it, the thought immediately arises: why they did not bring complaints about more egregious and obvious crimes?
Here I want to remind about the inappropriate, in my opinion, behavior of three North Ossetian lawyers, who in 2010 failed in similar cases. Moreover, one of them advertised himself widely, spoke on TV, collected more than 300 complaints from people who believed him, and he deceived their trust. They had neither the appropriate qualifications nor the ability to complete these cases. Why did they take up this business? Was there any evidence of fraud in this case? Somehow everything was quickly forgotten.
I think that today's decision of the court should be clarified. How did our side act? Was there an opportunity to present stronger crimes against our fellow citizens, what evidence was gathered, what were the arguments of our opponents? People of South Ossetia - both ordinary citizens, representatives of the scientific and creative intelligentsia, and defenders of Ossetia have the right to know how international institutions protect their legitimate rights and interests. And whether they protect them at all. If these cases no longer have a judicial perspective, then I find it useful to publish all the information about how the work was done in this direction. We need to think about whether it is possible to accuse the judges themselves in making a biased decision and bring them to justice. What does European legislation say about this?
It was repeatedly stated that in 2008 Georgia and Western countries had committed serious crimes against both South Ossetia and the Russian Federation.The European authorities are run by states whose governments of the relevant historical period are themselves involved in these crimes. Therefore, their position is not so unpredictable. But this does not negate the need for complete, detailed, objective information.
In order to be able to express any advice, judgments, comments and opinions, first of all, it is necessary to base on the complete, objective information. The information that has already been published is not enough for this.
