The key question surrounding the "Petri drug lord" is why a pardon was necessary at all. When Yotova signs the decree, Atanasov is no longer in prison for health reasons. This is where Yotova's explanation falls apart.
If we believe President and presidential candidate Iliana Yotova, the drug lord Ognyan Atanasov, who was pardoned by her in 2022, “should not be able to get out of his wheelchair today”. This is how she defended her decision to Nova TV: the medical commission was categorical that his condition did not allow him to return to prison.
A photo from April 2025, however, shows the “Petrich Escobar“ standing between two police officers who are taking him to court. The photo itself does not cancel his medical diagnoses, but it weakens Yotova's explanation. At that time, Atanasov had already spent two months in custody, after being again accused of participating in an organized drug trafficking group. During the raid, nearly five kilograms of cocaine were found in the car of another defendant.
Where is Atanasov now? The latest public information is that last spring the court released him under house arrest. Since then, there has been no news of an indictment, a trial, or a change in sentence.
The man whose health was serious enough for the Vice President to pardon him ten years in prison, has once again disappeared from the state's sight - this time not after escaping from a Greek prison, but behind the door of his own home. But is the Ministry of Interior convinced that Atanasov is there?
Cross-border crime
Judging by the series of publications in Greek media over the past two years, Ognyan Atanasov is better known in neighboring Greece than in Bulgaria. His Greek story begins in 1995, when he was caught with 2.5 kilograms of heroin and the court in Thessaloniki sentenced him to life in prison. After the verdict, he stated in the courtroom that he had paid to receive a lighter sentence. An investigation followed against a former police chief, a prisoner and a lawyer, accused of taking 40 million drachmas (117,388 euros) in bribes to judges.
No one was punished. On second instance, the life sentence was actually commuted to 18 years - after the police presented a document stating that Atanasov had helped to uncover three drug networks. Then prison officials certified that he had assisted in preventing a riot. He was transferred to the open prison “Kassandra“, from where he escaped in 1998. Four officers were accused of dereliction of duty, but were later acquitted, and the remaining checks ended in vain.
When he was finally handed over to Greece in 2019, Atanasov again cited his health. He claims to be ill, losing consciousness and not understanding what he is being tried for, while his lawyers claim that he suffers from encephalopathy with amnesia. The court refuses to stay the case, despite Atanasov's words: "I am ill, I do not know why I am accused. My wife knows."
The Bulgarian Ministry of Interior periodically arrests him, the Greek authorities periodically search for him - and between the two countries Atanasov always finds a loophole to escape.
Opacity in law
The presidency defended the pardon with a "thorough examination", opinions from the competent authorities and the conclusion of a seven-member medical commission. In a series of interviews and statements, Yotova stated that nothing was hidden and that she bears responsibility for her signature.
However, neither the medical examination, nor the protocol of the Pardon Commission, nor the specific reasons for the decision are public. The decree was also not published in the “State Gazette“, but this is not an omission - the law does not require it either for pardons, or for citizenship and for the forgiveness of uncollectible state receivables. Thus, the public learns who the presidential institution has pardoned only if the case is made public by it - or if the pardoned person again finds himself in the criminal chronicle.
The more important question is why a pardon was necessary at all. When Yotova signed the decree, Atanasov had not been in prison for two years - the execution of his sentence had been interrupted for health reasons. The interruption freed him until his condition prevented him from serving the sentence. But it left the possibility of his return if he improved. The pardon eliminated this possibility and finally pardoned him the remaining ten years.
It is here that Yotova's explanation falls apart. If Atanasov was so seriously and irreversibly ill that even today he "should not be able to get out of his wheelchair", there was practically no danger of him returning to prison. However, if improvement was possible, why did the state give up the right to serve the remainder of the sentence in advance?
The medical commission can explain why Atanasov could not be in prison in 2022. It cannot answer why he should have been released from prison forever. This decision is up to Iliyana Yotova. The case became famous because of the presidential campaign, but the election use of one fact does not make it any less important. Yotova wants to become president after nine years as vice president. Therefore, it is not enough to say that she is responsible for her signature - she must explain what necessitated it.
Mercy as a policy and as an exception
It is important that pardons be subject to public scrutiny. During his two terms, US President Barack Obama reduced the sentences of 1,715 people, most of whom were convicted of non-violent drug crimes. Separately, he pardoned 212 people completely. This was a previously announced policy against excessive punishments, applied to an entire category of prisoners, and not a difficult-to-explain exception for one person. In addition, all names are publicly available on the Ministry of Justice website, along with the courts, sentences, and the content of each decision.
In Peru, hundreds of pardons of drug traffickers under President Alan Garcia became known as narcoindultos - “narcopardieu“. An investigation followed into allegations that they were arranged for money. This is how the right to pardon turns into suspicion of favoritism when there is a lack of sufficient publicity.
In the case of Ognyan Atanasov, the opposite is true: the more difficult it is to explain an exception, the less the institution can expect the public to simply believe it.
This text expresses the author's opinion and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and the State News Agency as a whole.