eventually due to the dubious behavior on behalf of the state representatives, which might

be the reason to start having doubts on my prolonged detention under custody.

In some of the decisions of this court concerning my detention period, as it became

obvious from the last sitting, it considers that 1 year and 5 months is not a preposterous
term. According to the court this is not an irrational period of time _ 1 year and 5 months
is the investigation period on this case and it was brought up as the only period that has to
be kept in mind, in case the following 3 years are not taken into consideration and the
responsibility to disregard it as part of the obligation for discussing it when rationalizing
over the anticipation of the term. Therefore it is important and meaningful to review in
details which one according to the European precedents represents a "reasonable term".
What does, according to these precedents, represent the non-divergence "detention"
measure? In this respect the court could plead, based on its responsibilities and
obligations, as well as of the other state institutions, for which the judicial system is the
officer and the trustee of the law.

Art. 1 of the ECHRBF in its part requires the Convention member-countries to "provide
to every individual under their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms specified in section I
of the ECHRBF".

Today, I am going to fight for this right of mine against a judicial system or a public
belief, which practically attain the violation of the rights of a defendant to be an obstacle
and loss, and victory over justice. It is obvious that pleading against arrest or detention by
requesting the right for a hearing on some subject, requiring the court to take
responsibility and show interest regarding the behavior of individuals whose misdeeds
have lead to that, which I call violation of those rights. All that is an exception, and not a
rule, and it is worth noting the opinion of the EC on the legal responsibility, concerning
the behavior of the policemen and the Prosecution Office on the case Ireland vs. the
United Kingdom dated 18.01.1978. It is beyond belief for the high officials in a country
to be entitled in disregarding the existence of such practices. Besides, according to the
Convention these authorities are strictly responsible for the conduct of their subordinate
authorities, are capable of imposing their will over them and cannot hide behind the
irrationality to infringe that will. The thing I am talking about at the moment in court is
the responsibility on international level, for this court to look for such reliability on
international plan, for this court to look for creditability in the actions of official people _
accused for violation of the international legislation. This court knows and at least should
know and has to act accordingly when meeting with the defendant against such unlawful
and illegal actions of specific officials.

THE COURT

FINDS, that the defendant should be interrupted, since decisions have been already
declared concerning his allegation for the endorsed violations of his right by the
authorities of the pretrial proceedings and has implied to him that it is beyond its
competence to advance preliminary

113
proceedings regarding infringements of the law against him. The request is regarding the
change of the detention measure and the procedure has been settled in the NPK (?) hence
his statement has to be specific and in relevance with the made request.

THE DEFENDANT KAPOUSTIN:

The LP Code of the Republic of Bulgaria has been subject to a long debate and a detailed
reviewing by the European Court and in particular Article 152 of the PLC the one you
refer to. The issue on the reasonability has been largely debated in the case "Assenov and
others vs. Bulgaria", the case "Lukanov vs. Bulgaria" and the case "Nikolova vs.
Bulgaria". There is no fixed, resolute period in the PLC that defines the term reasonable.
Therefore it is left to the defendant and exclusively to this court to review the decisions of
the European Court that bind it to it. The court should not forget that Article 46,
paragraph 1 of the ECHRBF on which is based the ligature of the courts of the member-
countries, as well as the binding quality of the European Court precedents over the
judicial systems of these member-countries. This pertains especially to cases when
particular member-countries are put to trial. The court cannot hasten away from the
responsibilities of those arguments by hiding behind its internal legality. Particularly on
the European Court precedents, the facts and the circumstances which are presented to
you in their essence are the same as the case that is being scrutinized and the court has to
be regarded as bound by the decisions of the European Court on similar cases and in
particular on the case against the Republic of Bulgaria.

Besides, I ask you to recall Article 31, paragraph 2 of the ECHR& which propagates
these precedents that I mentioned. The Convention in particular intends that the
interpretations of its clauses in resembling circumstances is only in the jurisdictions of
the European Court whose rationality is presented on specific precedents. They bound the
judicial authorities of the member-countries and are not subject to interpretation. The
right of this court is to act according to the European Court decisions.

The subject of my detention isn't anymore a topic that has to be discussed on the ground
of a prejudiced opinion of this court's members. The issue on my liberation is a function
of the European Court precedents and has to be reviewed only on the grounds of the
European Court decisions and in compliance with the bounding practices of this court
with them.

The precedents are numerous on cases concerning the legality of the detention under
custody and the equitable terms. These are the cases: "Neumeister vs. Austria", "Nikolova
vs., Bulgaria", 25.03.1999, "Kampanis vs. Greece" _ 13.07.1995, "Sanchez _ Reise vs.
Switzerland" _ 21.10.1986, "Tot vs. Austria" _ 12.12.1991, "Van der Leo (?) vs. the
Netherlands" -&..(year?) "B. vs. Austria _ 28.03.1990, "Bozano vs. France" _
18.12.1996, "Ireland vs. the United Kingdom" _ 18.01.1978, "Quoin (?) vs. France _
24.03.1995, Vassink vs. the Netherlands _ 27.09.1990 and the case Lawles - 01.07.1961.

114
It is much more convincing to quote their precedents in details. There is even a more
convincing precedent of the European Court in connection with the case "Ringheizen vs.
Austria" 1971 and "B. vs. Austria" 1995.

I appeal the court to remember, that the presented facts and circumstances in front of you
are in fact the same in their essence, like by the way "Lukanov vs. Bulgaria 1997 as well,
concerning the violation of the Convention _ Article 5, paragraph 2, &..(?) paragraph 1b
"C". The case "Assenov and others vs. Bulgaria", for violation of Article 5, paragraph
3&4 of the ECHRBF and the case "Nikolova vs. Bulgaria" on the same topic.

I allege that I am worried for the consideration of the court that it does not feel obliged to
be responsible for the actions of such people who performed the investigation on my
case. The court does not feel a duty to review the behavior of those people and exercise
will over its subordinates.

Contrary to the opinion of this court, the European Court considers that the scrutiny of
the investigators_ and officers_ behavior is the obligation of the judicial authorities. I find
it reasonable but obviously the court doesn't and that is why rejects to analyze the facts
and the circumstances that can substantiate my accusations against these individuals, who
have been constantly violating my rights in the course of the investigation and the
accusations against me.

For the time being I'll limit my argumentation up to the point of the detention term
"reasonability".

The decisions of the European Court on the cases Assenov and others and Nikolova vs.
Bulgaria confirm that the presumptions for innocence and the weightiness on the proofs
for cases that have already a defined detention measure are not displaced in instances
when a debate for alteration of the detention measure is in progress. The court finds and
forces a financial and moral punishment against the people of this country because of the
fact that the judicial authorities do not act in the framework of the European Convention.
The European Court will continue to infringe such punishments. There are hundreds of
examples of such cases because of the annoying undesirability, and unconcealed denial
and direct refusal for the national judicial authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria to accept
and forcefully impose barriers between the misappropriation with personal liberty in
cases similar to mine, the opinion of the European Court judges shows it is equitable to
conclude, that in a democratic society it is unreasonable and illegal to keep a person
under tension and anxiety for more than 4 years in a state of insecurity without knowing
what will happen to him with subsequent difficulties resulting from that for him and his
family, for his business and the public opinion _ this is violation of Article 6, paragraph 2
of the ECHR&. No doubt the idea of dispensing judgment which will require the court to
engage in finding the whole truth particularly of the penalty case but when we exclude
the belated procedure that exists on this case in that sense it is very ambiguous whether
the court violates the laws and whether it serves justice. In such cases it is better to judge
for the benefit of

115
the defendant if there subsists the slightest doubt with the judges. Unwaveringly, the
European Court will take into consideration that in the circumstances of this case it is
inevitable for the judicial authorities in the Republic of Bulgaria, in the course of all those
almost 5 years not to have trespassed article 6 of the ECHR&- the "reasonable" term. The
court should consider that this text regards exceptionally the reasonable time and I plead
the court to see and consider with the necessary revisions, the decision on the Neumeister
vs. Austria case, which states: The period that has to be taken into consideration in order
to find out whether the requirement of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the ECHR&. for
reasonable term had been respected, unavoidably starts with the day when the bill of
indictment has been established and ends up with the condemnation on the reasonability
of the accusation. I remind the court that my accusation has been fostered on 27.11.1997.
Otherwise it would not have been possible to define the accusation according to the
Convention. This court should have taken into consideration the fact that the investigation
against me started on 15.05.1997, as a secret assignment of the Minister of Home Affairs,
which violates my rights in view of the local (internal) legislation.

I continue with my comments of the decision on "Neumeister vs. Austria" case for
violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the ECHR.

THE COURT

FINDS that it has to interrupt the statement of the defendant outlined as quotations from
the marked decision, because the court will get acquainted with it and it will not be
necessary to take it down on the court record of proceedings.

THE DEFENDANT KAPOUSTIN:

On 15.05.2000 in response to a motion to the Minister of Justice concerning the violation

of the European Convention, I got an answer that quoted the decisions of the European
Court, including the one B. vs. Austria. Since the court is going to read those decisions, I
think it is righteous to discuss them because they accurately illustrate define periods of
"reasonable" and "irrational" detention. Very simply I can tell the court that 4 years and 9
months detention is an absolutely irrational period seen and understood from every single
precedent which I have quoted until now. The mandatory condition of the presumption
for performing a crime as a reason for someone to be detained, stops being a reason after
the lapse of a limited period of time after the detention, Article 154 of the decision on the
Assenov vs. Bulgaria case, where the European Court concretely discusses this thesis. I
can tell the Court that it found out that the motif for the potential supposition of hiding
stops being an adequate reason in order to maintain such a detention after the elapse of a
determined period of time. The European Court finds out that it isn't reasonable anymore
to accept such presumption. I can explain to the court that in the cases "Lukanov vs.
Bulgaria", "Nikolova vs. Bulgaria", the Court has taken a decision against the Republic of
Bulgaria by judging that the legal system has acted wrongly, because of the fact that it
hasn_t taken its time to hear out the truth against the arrest and particular behaviors of
state officials. The Court has been obliged to review these facts. According to me

116
the European precedents are in striking contradiction with the arguments under which
You detain me under custody _ I can talk about that for 7-8 hours. The reason I allow
myself to quote specific precedents is that the court does not know about these decisions
and it does not use them as motives to take decisions, and namely these are the motives
which the European Court has pointed out as inadequate.

I find it difficult to understand why by asking for alteration of the "detention under
custody" with "home arrest" the court talks about a weaker detention measure. I'm
pointing out decision No.10 of the Superior Cassation Court of the Republic of Bulgaria
in view of the precision that the detention measure "home arrest" is a form of "detention
under custody", because as a matter of fact it indicates a limitation of the freedom, of the
person's right to freely travel around. I'm reminding you that since 25.05.1997 the
member-countries of the European Court have taken decision 497 Y 6237&. (This is in
their specialized newsletter C 91/23.08.97, page 0013-0026) according to which: In some
member-countries the law permits the judicial authorities to use the "home arrest" in
every case despite the fact what is this measure called when the provision is for the
individual to be deprived of liberty, as far as according to these laws the deprivation of
liberty is by location very different from the punishment asylum and is equivalent by goal
and legal attributes to the deprivation of liberty in a punishment asylum. The "home
arrest differs only in place where the individual is detained."

I feel obliged to remind the court that "home arrest" is used in cases of foreigners due for
extradition, released on accusation of murder, of individuals besides being accused of
drug traffic in particularly huge quantities, etc. All of them have spent considerably
shorter period of time in prison, and some even had a conviction at first instance, and I'm
refused to file such a motion/ my motion on the same subject stays without merit. Of
course this court is obliged to review the precedents of the USA.

I would like to go back to the cases noted by the Minister of Justice, which the court will
prefer. The Government represented by the Minister of Justice interprets and considers
the detention on the "Ringheizen vs. Austria" case as reasonable, that is why it is
necessary to have them reviewed in details. The choice of the state does not have good
grounds and is in fact refuting itself, because in both cases the circumstances or the
contents are as detailed as in my case. In both cases what the European Court has
predetermined is not in favor of the state concerning the equitability, along with judging
that the detention in both cases is unreasonable. The Minister of Justice reiterates that
according to the European logic a case can go on for 5 years, and in addition that the
period not unreasonable. I constantly insist that my 4 years and already 10 months
detention as a non-deflection measure on a first instance trial is an absolutely
unreasonable term. This position is supported by the decision of the "Ringheizen" case.
He had been arrested on 05.08.1963 was released on 23.10.1963. I was arrested on
19.02.1996 and had not been out for any length of time until this present day - 4 years
and 10 months. The court has to refer to Article 57 and Article 58 of the Decision on this
case.

117
I ask you to remember that my arrest has been effected on 07.02.1996 and I was
extradited on 02.09., the same year. I was brought to the judicial authorities for the first
time on 16.01.1998. We should remind ourselves that according to the European
Convention the arrest is only possible on the orders of the court, and the texts are Article
5, paragraph 1, item B and C from the ECHR. If we take into account the decisions on the
cases Assenov and Nikolova vs. Bulgaria, we'll be convinced that it is a violation of the
principles of the Convention. From 07.02.1996 until 18.01.1998, the court has to be
reminded that in August 1997, Article 152, paragraph 3 has been altered by which the
maximum detention term became two years, which means that on 07.02.1998 I had to be
released _ this is the expiration date of the legally accepted two years detention term. I
remind the court that if you decide to make an exception and disregard the period prior to
the month of August, 1997 of the preliminary arrest, we should recall that the accusation
act is dated 02.09.1998 which once again implies that I have been detained in violation of
the maximum lawful term. I ask the court to consider the fact that if the prosecutor had
observed the law, he would have been compelled to let me go before my standing in front
of this court, which means that there wouldn't have been any foundation for reviewing a
request for alteration of the detention measure because as a consequence of the law I was
going to be free.

My position is substantiated by the decisions of the European Court and in particular the
two quoted cases "Assenov and others vs. Bulgaria" and "Nikolova vs. Bulgaria". In fact
there is no excuse or motif for acquittal of detention for a period longer than 2 years set
by the law. Furthermore in the particular cases the European Court has found that the
three months detention of Assenov and the seven months detention of Ms. Nikolova
represent unreasonable terms, how could in this case be perceived 4 years and 10 months
detention under custody by the European Court.

I will remind the court again Ringheizen - his initial detention is three months. He was
for two years until …

THE COURT

FINDS that it has to interrupt the defendant's allegation by stating that it will take into
consideration the quoted by him decisions of the European Court.

ADJOURNS the sitting for 28.09.2000 at 9:30 a.m.

The protocol has been prepared in the course of a session that ended at 12:00.

Chairman:
/Signature/

Secretary:
/Signature/

118
Today, 28.09.2000 the court sitting continues in the presence of the same board (staff?),
secretary and prosecutor.

After the appeal by name at 9:45 a.m. the following people appeared:

THE DEFENDANT KAPOIUSTIN presented himself in person.

The translation today will be effected by the interpreter Petkov who has been warned on
the under penalty responsibilities for making incorrect translation and his personal data
has been taken down for the purposes of the case.

THE DEFENDANT KAPOUSTIN:

Before I continue with my pleading, yesterday I was given information by lawyer

Arunova that she will receive a report, a document by the neurologist by 23.10.2000
defining the prognosis of her illness and until this date she will take a decision whether
she will continue to participate in the process, according to Article 71 of the PLC. The
court has already made a decision for lawyer Arunova to inform the court within 7 days
whether she will go on participating. Lawyer Arunova notified me to ask the court to
review this decision and allow more time in order for this document from the doctor to be
received and which she will present to the court together with her point of view on the
question of my defense. If the court considers this now or later, I will be grateful to you.

I am proceeding on the topic for the reasonability of my detention and I want for my
motion to be affirmed.

I would like to express concern, that there exists a real danger for the translations of my
oral statements from 27.09.2000, in their majority to be reasonable, but it ensues
mentioning that there are certain mistakes and failings in transmitting some excerpts,
quotations and conclusions, as part of my argumentation. The court had difficulties in
getting oriented in my allegations and the task of the translator was complicated by the
length and the intricacy of my statements, likewise by the notions which had to be
transmitted. My concern is that most of the contents can be lost and my ideas ill
interpreted in the course of the simultaneous oral translation which will reflect on the
quality of my arguments and I_ll suffer wrongfully, the logic and the referring may be
conveyed incorrectly and as a result their convincing strength may be lost for the motion
in question on this special case.

I plead after almost five years spent in the arrest of the prison, the subjectivity for the
continuation of my detention on behalf of this court

119
to be taken into consideration. This is obvious from the failure of my lawyers in the past.

THE COURT

FINDS that it has to interrupt the statement of the defendant and tell him that he is
expected to continue with his request for alteration of the detention measure because this
is the only request upon which the court can announce in the absence of the defense.

THE DEFENDANT KAPOUSTIN:

Will Judge Mitkova allow me to continue further?

I continue on the thesis of reasonability, because it is the most complicated and with most
serious effects on the argumentation for my release.

In the past the court showed unwillingness to consider as unreasonable the essence, the
nature of my detention by throwing at me&.(?) which was the cause for the multiple
remarks I made recorded in the protocols of the sittings, which although of general nature
are in connection with the topic and useful to the extent that they might give the court a
wider and defensive thesis in which my more detailed arguments may spread. The
reasonability has to be based on the precedents as a subjected quality as far as the notion
"reasonable necessity" has to become the cause for the beginning of analysis on the
theme for my preliminary detention. The European Court considers that every serious
limitation of the personal freedom i.e. "detention under custody" in the course of a case is
the most ponderous measure with all its consequences as far as the individual in question
hasn't been definitely acknowledged as guilty, who might turn in the end non-guilty.

I plead the court to consider when reviewing my five years of detention under custody.
On the case "Nikolova vs. Bulgaria" that I quoted before, the judges Curis and Cassa
Deball who are on the Chairmen's list of the decision have declared that they find the
detention of Ms. Nikolova in the duration of 3 months and several days for unreasonable
detention and a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 and 4 of the ECHR&. "This has caused

THE COURT

FOR THE LAST TIME SIGNIFIES to the defendant that he does not have to quote
specific excerpts from the cited decisions of the European Court, because the court will
get acquainted with the texts of the above mentioned in details.

THE DEFENDANT KAPOUSTIN:

The court has to take into consideration that the reasonability of the spent time by me
under arrest until the final decision of the case has to be

120
evaluated in connection with the facts that until the issuing of the conviction I have to be
considered as innocent in view of the presumption for innocence.

121