beforeword · Public proposal edition · 30 September 2026
The public proposal now has a substantive case against custody, completed analyses of fourteen selected comparisons, a disclosed literature search and a numbered model bill. This record identifies what those materials accomplish. It does not count a prepared review brief as an outside opinion or a local website patch as a public launch.
Deliverables and their limits
| Workstream | Completed material | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| The case against imprisonment | Independently composed RU and EN arguments address repetition, coercive demands, coordinating instructions, breached orders, costs, review and correction. | The programme makes a contestable choice of permissible response. Equal preventive effectiveness and elimination of residual risk are not established. |
| Case comparisons | Fourteen groups cover seventeen base judicial acts and two compliance orders. Each selected analysis gives a local finding and considers the strongest objection. | Completion concerns the declared documentary layer. All underlying publications, recordings, national files and execution records have not been obtained. |
| Literature and review | Twelve executed queries produced 155 visible result records; twelve works were included, four from the project's prior bibliography. Selection decisions and adverse arguments are disclosed. Review briefs are ready. | A single search service, mainly English sources, purposive prioritisation and one screening pass limit coverage. Neither an exhaustive review nor independent duplicate screening is claimed. No outside legal opinion or independent human language edit has been received. |
| Legislative and public release | An England and Wales model bill addresses penalties, mixed allegations, derivative custody and transition. RU/EN pages and a feedback endpoint are prepared for the existing site. | No bill has been filed. The live site has not been changed, and the feedback channel is not described as operational there. The publication document records technical testing separately. |
Keeping the boundary in the remedy
“Measure”, “restriction”, “each” and “participant” do not supply their referents by appearing in a paragraph. The proposed process must identify the requested duty, its addressee, supporting material, duration, funding and opportunity to dispute inclusion. A record of that process remains a record. An implementation account is examined separately from the direction it describes.
This applies equally to accusations, favourable decisions, the study and the proposed law. It does not dispose of arguments about what people may do through communication. The proposed custody prohibition remains in force where a classification is supported and where earlier responses fail. Repetition and enforcement labels are not exceptions.
Documentary gaps still disclosed
The Russian analyses rely on judicial reproductions; separate complete newspaper and expert archives remain absent. Counterman includes the 2023 and 2024 opinions, without the original Facebook archive or an exhaustive later procedural history. The English cases include the selected judgments, without every underlying message file or a complete account of custody actually served.
PUCL is a direction concerning continued enforcement, not a nationwide compliance audit. Qwelane and Momberg retain the distinction between court accounts and independently acquired publications or recordings. Kimel's national review ruling is reported through the later Inter-American compliance order. Canese's judgment itself reports non-execution of the original sanctions; the later closure involved waiver of remaining interest, not its payment. These limits are attached to the relevant records, not hidden by the word “complete”.
The source register, case records and completed analyses identify what was used. Absence from this packet is not a claim of non-existence. New material can change the finding whose support it concerns.
Conditions for the next release status
An outside legal review requires an actual reviewer’s report identifying competence, interests, the reviewed version, objections and responses. Independent language editing requires separate human review of the Russian and English texts and a change record. The review briefs specify those tasks without impersonating their completion.
A live release requires the published address and an end-to-end submission on the production domain: acceptance, persistence, receipt, protection against access to another submission and a usable disabled state. A designated recipient of feedback and a response procedure are also needed. The publication record distinguishes the prepared implementation from deployment.
The earlier audit is retained as release history, not as the current completion register. Internal analysis is not credited as independent review. A numeric quality label would not replace any of these missing records.