TO: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The Office of Director Rashkov

International Legal Cooperation and
International Legal Assistance
1. Slavianska Street
1040 Sofia
Bulgaria
Date: Saturday, 14 November 2009
File: 94-M-147
Ref: Hague Conventions

Dear Sir or Madam,

I provide this letter in the hope of removing the veil of confusion apparently surrounding my
applications to the Ministry. In particular I have in mind those application having relied on
provisions of the Hague Convention on International Access to Justice (the “Convention”),
an issue admittedly complicated by questions having both civil as well as criminal law
jurisdiction.
Briefly, my application to the Ministry relies on two facts.
First, that as a foreign person deprived of liberty for more than six years I lack the
resources necessary to commence judicial proceedings on a hearing to determine a
point of law. As a result, I rely on the Convention to secure from the Government of
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, the required legal advice, aid and assistance. The issue is
one of law and raises questions as to the proper application and interpretation of
provisions found under Section 22 Chapter VI, in particular Article 463 of the Criminal
Civil Code of Procedure (the CCP). The particular procedure to determine this question
appears to require me to bring a civil action against the government or alternatively the
SCaPO and to commence a separate administrative judicial proceeding in Bulgaria to
establish my right, if any, to attend a foreign court. The objective of any such a process
having a purpose to establish the international obligations of the Republic of Bulgaria
to conduct persons deprived of liberty to and from a foreign trial. In the present
instance, the Government of Bulgaria is a defendant before the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Canada, and I required by the Canadian Court to appear as both
Plaintiff as well as witness.
Second, my applications to the Ministry under the Convention proves necessary due to
the decision of the Chief Judge of the Sofia District Court Civil College having
repeatedly refused me all previous requests for legal aid and a declaration of my
indigence. The Chief requires me as a foreign person to commence such proceedings
by securing at my expense attorneys as well as funds for state taxes, interpreters,
experts and so on, notwithstanding the fact of my being deprived of liberty and having
no property or income whatsoever at my disposal. The refusals of the SCC Chief Judge
appears solely the result of my foreign nationality, apparently the guarantees found in
the Convention are not applicable to the SCC Civil College. It is further to be recalled
that Director Rashkov wrote in his reply to me that I should consult an attorney as how
further to proceed, something I explained to Mr. Rashkov I did not have the financial
resources to do.
The foregoing leads me to rely directly on the principles of international law found in the
Convention and to apply directly to the Ministry, my repeated attempts at relying on the
common practice and procedures of the lex fori of the SCC having proven wholly unsuccessful.
19177403.doc Page 1 of 13
I believe it is now up to the Ministry to accept my application for aid and to ensure that the
appropriate regional authorities and institutions comply with the letter of this Convention as
well as other applicable principles of international law. This includes respecting as well as
incorporating into practice other treaty commitments of the Republic of Bulgaria.
At the risk of being redundant, I again repeat that my relying on the provisions of the cited
Convention is to secure for me as a person deprived of liberty legal advice, aid and other
assistance in Bulgaria before administrative as well as judicial authorities. I require this so that
I can further pursue my legal right as a person deprived of liberty to continue or defend in a suit
at law against the Republic of Bulgaria in a foreign jurisdiction having competence to
determine the facts and apply the relevant law.
If the reasons for my application still remains unclear, then possibly the following indexes and
explanations will succeed to clarify what the Ministry repeatedly insists to be my flawed
reasoning.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE of AUTHORITIES............................................................................................3
Controversies at Issue......................................................................................................6
Issue No. 1 Duty of Ministry......................................................................................6
Issue No. 2 Application of CCP Chapter 22 Article 461 and the Following .........6
Issue No. 3 Summonses of the British Columbia Supreme Court..........................6
Issue No. 4 The Onus On the Government To Take Steps.....................................7
Issue No. 5 Applicable Practice and Procedure.......................................................7
Issue No. 6 The Principle of International Reciprocity...........................................8
Issue No. 7 The Hague Conventions..........................................................................8
Issue No. 8 Refusals by the Chief Judge...................................................................8
Issue No. 9 The Subject of Controversy To Be Raised Before the SCC................8
Issue No. 10 No Motivated Answer from the Ministry..........................................10
Issue No. 11 Ministry Must Act...............................................................................10
Issue No. 12 Obstruction of Justice.........................................................................10
Facts - Course of Applications to Ministry ..................................................................10
Argument Advanced......................................................................................................12

19177403.doc Page 2 of 13
 TABLE of AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
Criminal Code of Procedure Article 461......................................................................................................3
Criminal Code of Procedure Article 463..........................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5
Criminal Code of Procedure Chapter 22, Section VI...................................................................................3

CONVENTIONS
Hague Convention On The Service Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or
Commercial Matters.....................................................................................................................................3

TREATIES
Transfer of Offenders Act of Canada...........................................................................................................3

6 Central Authority................................10
6 (six) plus years.................................12 Chapter 22........................................6, 7
A Chief Justice of the Sofia City Court....8
absence.......................................6, 8, 11 civil...............................1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12
absent....................................................8 civil jurisdiction....................................6
access......................................10, 11, 12 civil rights...........................................11
accommodation..................................10 competent agency.................................7
accommodations.................................12 competent court..............................7, 12
administrative.........1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 competent jurisdiction..................10, 12
agency...................................................7 competent tribunal..............................12
aid and assistance.......................1, 8, 10 conditional on.....................................12
appear at trial......................................10 conduct.....................................8, 10, 12
appearance............................................7 conducted to.......................................11
appearance at the hearings....................7 continue......................2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12
applicable law.......................................7 controversies.................................10, 12
applicable procedure.............................8 Convention for Transfer of Convicted
application..............................1, 2, 8, 11 Perosns..............................................8
Article 461........................................6, 7 Criminal Code of Procedure.................6
Article 463..................................1, 6, 11 criminal court.....................................11
as a party.............................................11 criminal law........................................11
assistance....................................2, 8, 10 criminal law jurisdiction.........1, 6, 7, 12
attend hearings....................................11 criminal law matter.............................11
attorney in Canada................................7 criminal procedure................................8
B custody..............................................6, 9
bi-lateral................................................8 D
Bidjeva, R. Ms................................6, 11 decision.................................................7
British Columbia Court......................11 default...................................................8
Bulgaria..........1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 defend.............................2, 7, 10, 11, 12
C defend in another State.......................12
Canada..........................1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 defendant..........................................1, 6
Canadian.....................................1, 7, 11 Defendant Government of Bulgaria....7,
Canadian court......................................7 11
CCP..................................6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Defendant Republic of Bulgaria.........11
19177403.doc Page 3 of 13
denied.................................................11 judicial hearings.........................6, 8, 11
Deputy Minister..................................11 judicial order.................................11, 12
detention securing measure................12 judicial proceedings..............................6
detention under custody......................11 judicial remedies.................................10
Dimitar Tonchev.................................11 judicial remedy.............................11, 12
district court..........................................8 L
documental evidence............................8 legal advice...........................................8
documents required..............................6 legal advise...........................................8
duty.................................6, 9, 10, 11, 12 legal and property interests.......7, 11, 12
duty the Government..........................10 legal and property rights.....................12
E legal controversy..................................8
equal access........................................10 legal distinction..................................11
escorted conduct...................................6 legal principle.................................7, 11
evidence................................................9 lex fori............................................1, 12
exempting...........................................12 liberties...............................................12
extra-ordinary.....................................11 liberty........................1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12
extradition...................................6, 7, 11 litigant...................................................7
F loss of civil rights...............................11
facts and law.......................................10 M
factually and legally.............................7 May 11th 2001....................................11
foreign..................................................6 May 9th 2001......................................11
foreign court.............................1, 6, 7, 8 Minister........................................11, 12
foreign hearings....................................8 Ministry of Justice................6, 7, 10, 12
foreign lex fori....................................12 multilateral............................................8
foreign person...........................8, 10, 12 N
foreign request....................................11 necessary steps.................................7, 8
foreign summonses...............................6 no treaty..............................................11
formal requirements.............................7 Notice of Hearing...........................6, 11
former Minister.............................11, 12 O
G obligation........................................6, 10
give evidence............................6, 10, 12 obstacle.................................................8
government.........................9, 10, 11, 12 onus................................................7, 11
government Bulgaria..........................10 onus of duty..........................................7
guarantees.........................................1, 8 Ordinances............................................6
H Ordinances of the Ministry...................6
Hague Convention........................1, 7, 8 P
I parties...................................................7
imperative.............................................8 plea.....................................................11
imprisoned............................................8 point of international law...............8, 12
imprisoned persons...............................8 police custody.......................7, 8, 10, 12
in proprio persona...........................7, 11 police escort..........................................7
individual right...................................12 positive obligation..............................10
intent of lawmakers..............................6 practice or procedure............................8
international agreement........................7 practices and procedures......................7
international justice............................10 principles of international law...1, 2, 10,
international law.................................12 12
interpretation....................................1, 8 prisoner.........................6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12
J private law..........................................10
19177403.doc Page 4 of 13
procedure............................1, 6, 7, 8, 11 suit at law........................7, 9, 10, 11, 12
proceedings.............1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 summoned............................................6
Q summoning of a witness.....................11
quasi-criminal.................................8, 11 summons.................................6, 7, 8, 11
quasi-criminal proceedings...................8 Supreme Court of British Columbia6, 7,
quasi-judicial........................................8 11, 12
quasi-judicial procedure.......................8 Supreme Court of the Republic of
R Bulgaria............................................8
reasonable and necessary....................12 Supreme Prosecutor of the Republic of
reciprocity.......................................8, 11 Bulgaria............................................7
reliance...............................................12 T
Republic of Bulgaria............................6 temporary conduct................................6
restricted by law.................................12 temporary transfer................7, 8, 10, 11
reverse onus..........................................7 territorial criteria.................................12
right to appear.................................9, 12 the Ministry................1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12
rights.............................................10, 12 time fixed..............................................8
S Tonchev..............................................11
saving provision.................................12 transfer..............................................8, 9
SCaC.....................................................8 treaties............................................7, 10
sentence................................................8 treaty.......................................2, 6, 8, 11
sentenced..............................................8 V
sine quo non........................................12 verdict...................................................8
Sofia Appeal Court...............................8 W
State is a party....................................12 witness........................................6, 7, 11
status.....................................................8 written applications............................10
statutory................................................8 written pleadings..................................8
statutory imperative..............................8

19177403.doc Page 5 of 13
 Controversies at Issue

Issue No. 1 Duty of Ministry

My continued insistence is on the obligation of the Ministry of Justice, Government of the

Republic of Bulgaria as having a duty to arrange temporary conduct in police custody in
circumstances were a prisoner is to attend judicial hearings, notwithstanding proceedings have
a civil and not criminal character and are outside of Bulgaria.
In the present instance, there are two judicial proceedings before th Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada having named the Republic of Bulgaria a
defendant; I am a party to the proceedings and a witness.

Issue No. 2 Application of CCP Chapter 22 Article 461 and the Following

My position has been that the legal hypothesis set out in Article 463 Criminal Code of
Procedure (the “CCP”) as having fixed the intent of lawmakers to permit persons deprived of
liberty to be conducted in custody to and from foreign judicial proceedings, notwithstanding
that they may only appear to give evidence. More importantly Article 461 allows for such
escorted conduct abroad even in circumstances where there is no extradition or other treaty in
force, relying on the principle of reciprocity.
My continued insistence is having Article 463 CCP appled to circumstances of all foreign
summonses, notwithstanding the civil jurisdiction of the requesting foreign court. Articles 463
and 464 CCP having made no distinction between a foreign civil or criminal proceeding.
It is reasonable for the procedure set out under Chapter 22, Section VI of the CCP as well as
Ordinance No. 2 and the following of the Ministry of Justice to apply the cited CCP section to
all occasions of a foreign civil court summoning a person who is deprived of liberty in
Bulgaria. Application of the CCP as well as Ordinances of the Ministry having resulted solely
by virtue of the fact the person summoned is committed to prison and therefore falls within the
ambit of the Ministry’s jurisdiction, and otherwise unable to attend to any court of law in
absence of its active intervention – positive action – of the Ministry.

Issue No. 3 Summonses of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

I continue to insist the summons served to me by the Ministry, Ms. R. Bidjeva (Expert
International Legal Cooperation and International Legal Assistance) in the form of a “Notice of
Hearing” from the Supreme Court of British Columbia are the only documents required by the
procedure identified in Article 463 of the CCP, notwithstanding that the style and form of the
summons as well as the accepted practice and procedure of the lex fori of Canada differ from
that of the Republic of Bulgaria.

19177403.doc Page 6 of 13
The Notice of Hearing by the Canadian court is a summons for me to appear in proprio
persona at a judicial hearing to continue as well as defend my legal and property interests
against the Republic of Bulgaria, this document meets the formal requirements of the CCP
practice and procedure under Article463 and the following. More importantly the Canadian
summons conforms with the form of rules applicable to such documents according to
provisions of the Hague Convention On The Service Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial
Documents In Civil Or Commercial Matters. The refusals of the Ministry to recognise this
summonses is factually and legally without merit.
My reasoning is supported by the fact the attorney in Canada for the Defendant Government of
Bulgaria together with the Supreme Court of British Columbia are the parties having
formulated the summons for me to attend to court, and the Ministry of Justice acted as agency
in Bulgaria for the Defendant’s attorney and the court to deliver the summons.
My summons to Canada was accepted by the Ministry of Justice, apparently under the terms of
Article 461 CCP as well as what the Ministry believes to be its compliance with the Hague
Convention On The Service Abroad Of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or
Commercial Matters. The summons of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Canada must
therefore be a document that complies with the requirements of Chapter 22 Section VI of the
CCP.

Issue No. 4 The Onus On the Government To Take Steps

I continue to insist the Government of Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice as having the onus on
receiving the summons of undertaking the necessary steps to secure my appearance at the
hearings and trial in Canada.
It unreasonable and therefore wrong for the Ministry to place a reverse onus on a person
deprived of liberty to commence proceedings, independent of the Ministry to secure his or her
appearance before a foreign court. The Ministry is the competent agency to advise the Supreme
Prosecutor of the Republic of Bulgaria of the foreign courts summons of the prisoner and of the
need to fix a hearing according to provisions of the Chapter 22 Section VI of the CCP.

Issue No. 5 Applicable Practice and Procedure

Admittedly there are practices and procedures found under treaties of extradition that seem
more in the keeping with the principle of “temporary transfer and custody” of a prisoner by a
foreign state. However, the factual circumstances of the present case and the civil context of the
summons in question might equally be considered as an administrative decision by the Ministry
of Justice, Bulgaria one having no judicial element as contemplated for those proceedings
conducted as extraditions under criminal law jurisdiction.
The question of what international agreement or legal principle should apply to the present
circumstances is an admittedly complex one. Since it does not appear possible to reach a
consensus with the Ministry on the applicable law the question then falls to determination by
competent court of law.
My continued insistence is only for police escort and temporary transfer of this Canadian
citizen to the custody of Canadian police, having as its objective the securing my appearance
before a Canadian court as a witness or litigant in a suit at law.

19177403.doc Page 7 of 13
In the present circumstances the applicable procedure to temporary conduct of a prisoner is an
administrative decisions made within the ambit of a particular international bi-lateral or
multilateral treaty, or absent that on of reciprocity, notwithstanding the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Bulgaria having failed to issue a final verdict within the time fixed by the CCP.
I insist that the natural result of the SCaC having failed to observe a statutory imperative of the
criminal procedure act having by default acted to bring into force the earlier decision of the
immediate lower instance court, the Sofia Appeal Court. Should this prove true it would then
alter my status to that of a person sentence under law and subject to provisions of Convention
for Transfer of Convicted Perosns sentenced with Canada, and thus my request then considered
within the ambit of a temporary transfer of a sentenced prisoner who is entitled by law to
participate in foreign judicial proceedings having a civil character.

Issue No. 6 The Principle of International Reciprocity

In the alternative, I continued to insist on application of the principle of reciprocity as a

reasonable alternative if no treaty, practice or procedure exists for temporary transfer and
custody of prisoners between Canada and Bulgaria.
The procedure for temporary or other transfer of imprisoned persons between Bulgaria and
Canada seems purely administrative in nature. The summons to appear before a foreign court
having only engaged a limited participation of the district court in what seems more a quasi-
judicial than judicial procedure found under Article 463 of the CCP.
The Bulgarian district court is required only to confirm the requests as well as the requested
prisoners desire to attend foreign hearings, and most probably required to secure guarantees of
the prisoners eventual return. The absence of a specific treaty between Bulgaria and Canada
does not pose an obstacle, the principle of reciprocity being applicable.

Issue No. 7 The Hague Conventions

My insistence on applying to the present circumstances the Hague Convention on

International Access to Justice can be found in Article 2 that reads: “Article 1 shall apply to
legal advice provided the person seeking advice is present in the State where advice is sought”.
Until now, I have continuously sought “legal advise” on how to proceed in undertaking the
necessary steps to secure my conduct in police custody to and from judicial hearings in Canada.

Issue No. 8 Refusals by the Chief Judge

Furthermore, my insistence on making application under the Convention on International

Access to Justice results from the refusals of the Chief Judge of the Sofia City Court to
recognise my right as a foreign person deprived of liberty to receive legal advise, aid and
assistance in civil and quasi-criminal proceedings, this despite written pleadings and
documental evidence.
I am unable to commence separate proceedings in Bulgaria solely due to the Chief Justice and
the Ministry refusing me legal advice, aid and other assistance.

Issue No. 9 The Subject of Controversy To Be Raised Before the SCC

The subject of any legal controversy appears to turn on a point of international law and its
proper interpretation.
19177403.doc Page 8 of 13
The question to be answered;
“Does the Republic of Bulgaria have a duty to secure the transfer of a foreign prisoner into the
custody his or her national police having in mind he or she has the legal right to appear and
give evidence in a suit at law against the government of Bulgaria ?”

19177403.doc Page 9 of 13
 Issue No. 10 No Motivated Answer from the Ministry

Repeated written applications as well as lengthy explanations to the Ministry have failed to
clarify the foresaid controversies. This leaves apparently no other solution except to commence
separate judicial proceedings in Bulgaria to secure the right to attend judicial proceedings in
Canada.
The objective of such a separate proceeding before a Bulgaria court is to obtain a judicial
determined of the scope of duty the Government of Bulgaria has to its various treaties in private
law [see: Hague Conventions on private law] and what rights a person deprived of liberty has
left to him in a private law proceeding.
As well the competent Bulgaria Court is asked to determine what duty the Ministry of Justice
has in observing Bulgaria’s international obligation to see that all persons deprived of liberty
have equal access to judicial remedies as well as international justice [see: International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights] in proceedings having a private law nature, and
notwithstanding that they have proceeded in a foreign against the government of Bulgaria, its
officials, agencies or an instrumentality.

Issue No. 11 Ministry Must Act

However, as a foreign person deprived of liberty I require the legal advice, aid and other
assistance in order to commence such judicial proceedings in Bulgaria, such aid and assistance
the primary objective of the Convention on International Access to Justice.
I have therefore applied to the Ministry as Central Authority to secure for me such access to
advise, aid and assistance as provided for in the said Convention.
The Ministry’s aid is required to commence judicial or administrative proceedings in an
attempt at obtaining an order requiring the Ministry of Justice, Government of Bulgaria to
comply with Article 463 of the CCP as well as applicable principles of international law.
Thereby I hope to secure my temporary transfer in police custody to Canada to appear at trial
and give evidence to the court.

Issue No. 12 Obstruction of Justice

Finally, I continue to insist the last government having consciously acted to obstruct me from
my right to give oral evidence or to continue as well as defend in a suit at law against the
Defendant Government of Bulgaria. This conclusion remains a reasonable one despite my
limited education and knowledge of law for the reasons that follow.

Facts - Course of Applications to Ministry

1. My past requests to the Ministry have insisted on the positive obligation of the State of
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, to make accommodation for the conduct of prisoners to
and from court hearings, notwithstanding that the court having competent jurisdiction
to determine the facts and law happens to be a foreign one.

19177403.doc Page 10 of 13
 2. The judicial hearings relevant to my earlier requests as well as the present enquiry are
those fixed by attorneys for the government of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Defendant
in a suit at law where I am both a plaintiff and key witness. I refer to two cases before
the Supreme Court of British Columbia numbered S004040 and S005440.
3. On May 9th 2001, I received from the Ministry a negative reply to my request to attend
hearings fixed by the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria. The then Deputy Minister of
Justice, Mr. Dimitar Tonchev having written I have no civil right to attend judicial
hearings in my home country, notwithstanding that such hearings are at the request of
the Defendant Government of Bulgaria. The former Minister going so far as to suggest
that my loss of civil rights is solely due to the reason of my detention under custody.
4. On May 11th 2001, I responded to the former Minster by having pointed out that there
exists no international legal principle, national criminal law or extra-ordinary
administrative or judicial order supporting such conclusions on the part of the
government.
I pointed out that Article 463 of the Criminal Code of Procedure (CCP) provided the
required procedure for securing the temporary absence of prisoners to attend foreign
judicial proceedings, Article 463 making no distinction as to the civil or criminal
character of the foreign request.
Identified to the former Minister was the fact that the summons required by Article 463
CCP existed in the form of a Notice of Hearing from the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. The Court and the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria having required me to
appear in proprio persona at a judicial hearing to continue as well as defend my legal
and property interests against the Republic of Bulgaria, Ms. R. Bidjeva (Expert
International Legal Cooperation and International Legal Assistance) herself facilitated
service to me of the Notice of Hearing (summons).
I attempted to make a legal distinction for the former Minister’s between an
“extradition request” to stand trial under Canadian criminal justice and a “temporary
transfer request” of a court for a prisoner to appear as a party or witness at a judicial
proceeding of indeterminate character (civil or quasi-criminal proceeding).
It was pointed out to the Minister that the subject of my application had no connection
to an “extradition request” on the part of a criminal court of Canada, for which there
is no treaty , notwithstanding the principle of reciprocity applies in absence of a treaty.
I pointed out instead that the summoning of a witness before a court of Canada is not
unlike the numerous times I had been conducted to and from civil proceeding before
Bulgaria courts, and I failed to see the connection of such a request to an extradition
proceeding in a criminal law matter.
5. The Minister denied my request, notwithstanding that he was aware attorneys for the
Government of Bulgaria having answered my summons, entered a plea and fixed a date
for the first session before the British Columbia Court. Mr. Tonchev in fact giving his
own evidence in writing against my complaint to the British Columbia Supreme Court.
6. The grounds I pleaded to the Ministry relied on its constitution duty as well as the onus
of Bulgaria’s international treaty commitments to guarantee access to both the means to
develop a judicial remedy as well as physical access to courts.

19177403.doc Page 11 of 13
 7. My requests having relied on applicable principles of international law that place the
responsibility on the Government of Bulgaria to secure fundamental civil rights for all
persons it has deprived of liberty. Specific reference made, inter alia, to Article 14§1
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. I placed particular emphasis on
interpreting that part reading the Covenant reading “In the determination of any…
rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, here
the competent tribunal happens to be the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
8. My written requests never once suggested for the Ministry to alter the detention
securing measure imprisoning me the past 6 (six) plus years, notwithstanding that the
former Minister persisted in making such references in his correspondence to me.
9. I concluded the Minister to be wrong. The government of Bulgaria only entitled to
restrict my access to courts of civil or criminal law only to those occasions of agencies
of the Ministry having arranged police custody and it the Ministry’s duty to consider
my request for conduct to the hearings in question.
10. I found the arguments of the Ministry poorly grounded as well as evasive; under no
circumstances can a judicial order depriving a person of liberty indirectly engage a
further administrative act by the Ministry having as its direct affect the further
depravation of a prisoners other fundamental civil rights and liberties not otherwise
restricted by law.
11. Here we are concerned with the individual right to pursue the State of Bulgaria in a
civil action and to appear before the competent court to give evidence against the
Defendant Bulgaria as well as to continue or defend my legal and property interests
before that court.

Argument Advanced

12. The rights insisted upon by me are not conditional on my civil complaints having meet
any territorial criteria. There is no saving provision or article of international law
exempting any State, including the State of Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, from the
positive duty to make whatever accommodations are reasonable and necessary to
securing a prisoner his or her rights under law and before the courts. It is sine quo non
my right to appear at any civil or criminal proceeding, and it is even more so my right
to do so when the State is a party to the proceedings, notwithstanding the foreign lex
fori of the court having competent jurisdiction.
13. I considered that the foregoing controversies turned on a point of international law and
the former Minister to be wrong.
The Ministry of Justice is wrong to refuse to acknowledge any duty to me as a foreign person
deprived of liberty. I again place particular reliance on the language of Article 2 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, having in mind the phrase ensuring to
all persons on the territory of any State their right to develop a judicial remedy and to continue
or defend in a suit at law. Such rights available to all persons of all nationalities,
notwithstanding they are prisoners of one State and have legal and property rights to defend in
another State.
My present circumstance as a person deprived of liberty proves the causus for raising issues
having both civil and criminal law jurisdiction.

19177403.doc Page 12 of 13
 Respectfully,
Michael Kapoustin

Enclosure: Form 5 Hague Application for Assistance. Rashkov - Hague Application 002.doc

19177403.doc Page 13 of 13