Is it possible to improve the judicial system in Russia? Jury courts in Russia. Advantages and disadvantages. Lyudmila Alekseeva - 10 years of cooperation between Russia and the Council of Europe

[Radio Liberty: Programs: Human Rights] [30-07-05]

Leading Christina Gorelik

Is it possible to improve the judicial system in Russia? Jury courts in Russia. Advantages and disadvantages. Lyudmila Alekseeva - 10 years of cooperation between Russia and the Council of Europe

Kristina Gorelik: Is it possible to improve the judicial system in Russia and, if so, how to do it? Human rights activists and lawyers from more than 20 Russian regions tried to answer this question. Seminars, trainings, round tables that are held these days in the training center near Moscow are organized as part of the project "Protecting the Protection of Citizens' Rights", supported by the Council of Europe. Seminars are held - honored lawyers, professors, members of an independent expert legal council.

What do leading regional human rights activists think about the Russian judicial system? There are many complaints, much more than positive reviews.

Emma Feldstein from the Dzerzhinsky human rights center and Vasily Guslyannikov from the human rights center in Mordovia are sure, however, like most of the project participants, that the main problem is the dependence of the judges. Is it possible to change the situation?

Emma Feldstein: First, the question is on whom are dependent. Dependent, first of all, in my personal sensation, on the executive branch. We feel this every day in court. If the trial between representatives of the executive branch and a citizen, then we are completely in unequal conditions. This is the most important dependence.

Second. Rather, the lack of dependence on the law, on the implementation of the law. Because addiction and responsibility are two sides of one problem. So to punish the judge, first of all, the law is provided through the qualification collegium. I was convinced of my own many years of experience that this is impossible, the qualification collegium refuses to simply even consider, invite and consider, even when there is a clear falsification, there are direct violations, and the main factor is an unequal position in general in the most political system of these three branches of power: executive, legislative and judicial. In fact, it was traditionally that the leading position is occupied by the executive branch and it does not voluntarily want its position.

What to do? I think that simple and quick solutions are simply not. I tried to analyze (since I was in the States a couple of times, I had to communicate, including in the authorities), to compare, and what we have. In my opinion, the folding of these traditions, when power is considered with society, requires time, great efforts and, unfortunately, losses, simply physical, moral and all kinds of losses. Only in this struggle is unequal, in the end, these traditions are born.

Christina Gorelik: Vasily Dmitrievich, do you have something to add?

Vasily Guslyannikov: I completely agree that our judicial system depends on the executive branch, which is prevailing to all other branches. And now, under our legislation, the president appoints judges. The governor has a very strong impact on the court and specifically on the chairman of the court, or it is a regional court, or the district, that is, everything is under control there.

The most important task is how to get away from this. We offer that to make judges independent, firstly, we must make them independent from the executive branch. Personally, I already proposed for a long time, however, I have not met support in this regard, that judges should be elected popularly. Naturally, not the elections that we now, profanity, are not elections, but with the free nomination of candidates, of course, to legislatively determine that judges can be people who have the work experience of a legal for at least so many years. And then there is free agitation. They say why you think, they will not choose the judges of the same corrupt. I say because it will be possible to discuss freely. For example, I can then tell the population that the judge did not vote for this, because this judge made an illegal decision that I appealed in court in Strasbourg and won it. It's like one of the arguments. Although all I am talking about is perfect. In our life, this may not be possible soon, but we should strive for something.

One of the arguments, I think, may also be a branch of a fully judicial department, in the sense of material reward for work, that is, the salary of judges, housing to provide judges so that this does not depend on the governor. After all, now it depends on the governor: the judge will be obstinate, he will not receive housing.

Christina Gorelik: How can it be done?

Vasily Guslyannikov: make a separate line in the budget of the judicial department in which to provide a salary of judges.

Speaking of salary. I believe that it is impossible for them to make a salary very high. There is still a lot of money, they took a bribe as they took, they will take it. But it is precisely the popular elections with a free discussion of candidates that will allow most of the honest people to the position of judges, and the State Duma should establish their salary. I think that this salary should be limited to approximately three, average in Russia, that is, it should not be sky -high. Because when a large salary, then people simply lose control of themselves, they are torn there for the sake of salary, for these positions. And here people should still be compassionate to the population, because they often make decisions illegal, by call, that is, as they say to him, it will be so.

And one of the reasons. I think that the adoption of legal decisions of court is not the distribution of court cases not the chairman of the court, district or regional, but lots. Because, what a sin to hide, in every court there are those people who will make the right decision, and the chairman gives them all the tickling things, he knows that this judge will make the right decision. And when these cases are distributed by lot, it is highly likely that it will fall into an honest judge who will make his decision, although all this is idealism. Because if the judge makes a decision that does not suit the executive branch, the authorities will do everything in order to squeeze out this person and he will no longer be a judge. Such examples are as much as you like.

And then there are a lot of different reasons, including incompetence. I will give a very simple example. Three years ago, I filed three identical cases in the court for fan shutdown of electricity, two of them were satisfied, one refused, although all cases were the same. Those who satisfied were decided to recover from Mordovenergo in one, in the other - from the resolving of electricity. That is, it turns out the court made three different decisions. I filed three cassation complaints, one at a time that they refused, and according to others, that they gave little compensation. So that you just do not go to court, they give compensation 300 rubles. Although I spent my strength, I sued for six months. I filed cassation complaints and the highest instance - the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia - made a decision to leave everything unchanged. Do you understand what we are talking about? That is, the right hand does not know what the left does. All three different decisions and they all approved as legal. This is generally absurd.

Kristina Gorelik: Emma Zakharovna, do you agree that judges should be elected popularly?

Emma Feldstein: No. I have a completely different point of view on this issue. I believe that these elections will not give the desired effect for many reasons, including two, probably I would call the main reasons. The first - citizens cannot evaluate the qualifications of judges, they do not have information, given the number of citizens who come to the elections and the level of awareness of citizens, and understanding in general what a judge is and what qualities he should have. The second is our electoral system, which can manipulate the elections as much as you like, including the informing system, as is generally accepted at all, it simply does not allow you to convey even this information. That is, in my opinion, this will not give an effect. This is briefly. It seems to me that this good idea is interesting, but its implementation will not give an effect.

Kristina Gorelik: As for a separate line of income for judges, generally material independence of judges from the executive branch?

Emma Feldstein: You understand, there is some reason in this, but I would not say that this is a panacea. Because the second problem arises here - dependence on the same judicial department. Indeed, in fact, no matter how much we offer and have been looking for recipes for independence today, it really depends on the state of society, on culture, on traditions. This cannot replace any laws. After all, it is well known with us that laws are not as bad as their implementation. That is, law enforcement practice does not withstand any criticism. In fact, to be honest, I do not count on the fact that you can teach some recipe and independence will appear. This is the state of society. The whole society should change simultaneously. Until it changes, there will be no independence.

Kristina Gorelik: Tatyana Kotlyar from the Obninsky regional human rights group and the local deputy is confident that the majority of decisions of the judge still make themselves, not at the point from above, and the main problem that needs to be solved is the issue of improving the qualifications of judges.

Simple mortals can affect the outcome of the case on their own, Tatyana Kotlyar believes. How to do it? She is a word.

Tatyana Kotlyar: The first is the creation of the correct judicial practice. And here, I believe that human rights activists, civil society can do a lot, since judicial practice is very dependent on us. Come to the court with a person as his representative, prepare the whole thing, that is, justify why his requirements are correct and legal, and then your position, in fact, form the basis of the court decision. Conduct several such cases and a judicial practice is placed. In most cases, there are no instructions from above and judges are happy to make exactly those decisions that are based on the law, especially if you come and justify well.

Suppose I have no problem with protecting the rights of conscripts who are illegally called.

Kristina Gorelik: There was no such prejudice, a judge against representatives of public organizations?

Tatyana Kotlyar: No. Rather, when the judges were faced with these complaints and saw that the draft commissions were being created, they had a prejudice against representatives of military registration and enlistment offices and draft commissions.

Or, for example, when we protect the rights of veterans, pensioners, rear workers, disabled people. Very often we have to protect them from illegal refusals in their benefits of social protection. That is, officials who receive a salary for protecting the rights of old people, it is from them that I have to go to court and defend these same old people, this is generally absurd. There are also no problems with the courts here.

The second that refers to the qualifications of judges is completely inexplicable cases in a number of cases and directions when the practice of making clearly illegal decisions has developed, I see which articles of the law are violated. It is these decisions that regional courts are in force. I think what to do with it? Again, I see what we can do as representatives of civil society. It is necessary to introduce the practice of promulgation of court decisions, all decisions, for example, by posting them on the Internet. We can attract the attention of the media, public attention, attention, in the end, of the community of lawyers. That is, such decisions that are clearly unlawful, it is necessary to make them the subject of discussion of our community.

Kristina Gorelik: Do you think the media, the same ordinary citizens will be interested in individual decisions of individual judges?

Tatyana Kotlyar: No, I do not assume that the decision itself, at least three, at least on ten pages, it makes sense to publish in the "Vespers". But when we made the first court decision, which recognized illegal cancellation of the mayor of Obninsk, we hung it on the city’s website and immediately published the newspaper “Ubninsky Bulletin”, but not all this decision, but its main provisions, which, in fact, could not be canceled the elections of the mayor of Obninsk. On their own initiative, this was read by the whole city and with great interest, because people were in the subject. And, perhaps, knowing in the future form that these decisions have become the subject of discussion and puzzled issues, the practice will also change.

The fact is that I’m not a judge and I don’t know where this practice came from, why there is a position that these matters should be refused. I do not know what it is based on why it has become. Therefore, I can’t comment on what happened inside them, but it, by and large, doesn’t matter to me. It is important for me that this becomes the subject of discussion: either prove that this is right, let lawyers prove, or there should not be unjust decisions.

Kristina Gorelik: And there should also be no judges of corrupt and irresponsible. But what to do with this?

Many spoke out for the introduction of a jury in Russia and in civilian processes. In their opinion, this will help the court is independent. It is more difficult to bribe jury than the usual judge, they are much more serious about their duties, plus - uncomplicated by legal norms and bureaucratic procedures, the consciousness of the jury will help him make a decision based on the principles of justice.

The jury in Russia today only criminal cases.

Did the jurors justify hope, the expectations of human rights activists? About this - in our program today.

From January 1, 2004, jury courts began to operate in all Russian regions, with the exception of the Chechen Republic. And today, almost every person under investigation, who is accused of serious crimes, can choose for himself: does he want a traditional court or decide and give his fate into the hands of random people. The same jury that will endure the verdict, guided not so much by legal norms as with their ideas about what is good and what is bad.

One of the arguments is not in favor of the jury at the prosecutor’s office: the jurors justify the people who are obviously guilty of crimes. The other day in Pskov, the jurors justified, according to the prosecution, one of the accomplices of the murder. The word Anna Lipina.

Anna Lipina: On August 26, 2002, Pskov was shocked by a daring crime. On the threshold of his own house in the morning, the head of the Laknyansky district of the region Leonid Volkov was shot dead. The version of the ordered murder was immediately considered by the regional prosecutor’s office as the main one, and already in October, the former head of the district Sergey Vasiliev was concluded on suspicion of involvement in the murder. At the same time, two more suspects were detained, one of them during a search was discovered by firearms. However, the investigation established that there were four participants. The fourth participant, Andrei Kosobutsky, was also indicated by the organizer of the murder Sergey Vasiliev. Kosobutsky was charged with murder, illegal acquisition, transfer and storage of firearms and ammunition.

A year ago, the Pskov Regional Court found Sergei Vasiliev guilty of the murder of Leonid Volkov and sentenced him, as the organizer of the crime, to 16 years in prison. The executor of the ordered murder received 10 and a half years in prison with the serving of a sentence in a correctional colony of a special regime. Mediator - 6 and a half years. The fourth suspect, Andrei Kosobutsky, was hiding from justice for a long time and only the other day the trial of Kosobutsky took place. However, Kosobutsky, as a result of the vote of the jury of the jury, was issued an acquittal. The prosecutor's office of the Pskov region intends to protest this jury. This is how the human rights activist Venedikt Khovalov commented on the situation.

Venedikt Kindovalov: The jury is a court of conscience. 12 jury people from the street go to court and listen to the parties participating in the adversarial court: there is a prosecution and there is a defense. And here is the side that will perform more convincing in court, and it receives priority in the eyes of the jury. But the prosecutor’s office, which is just participating as an accusation, she is not ready for such a turn of events. And the facts for which over and over again the acquittals made by the court of jury are protested, allow us to say that the intention of the prosecutor’s office consists in the desire to discredit the jury, to prove that Russia, the people to the jury is not morally ready, that their acquittals are unreasonable verdicts.

It is no secret that, as a rule, the prosecution or the investigation that comes out with the charge of the jury is preparing materials. And very often these materials, these evidence, this evidence base is very weak. When we did not have a jury, when the court made a decision at its discretion and this court was with an obviously indictment, then the prosecutors, the prosecutors were very simple. They did not have to compete with someone, especially to prove something. After all, in the country a priori, there was a court in advance. Now the situation is fundamentally changed. They need a jury, 12 people, ordinary people who do not have a legal education, but they clearly answer where the prepared base evidence, and where stretching, where the ends meet at all. And this is our indictment, our prosecutor's office does not suit.

Anna Lipina: The indictment believes that during the court sessions violations of criminal procedure legislation were committed, which influenced the opinion of the jury. In this regard, the prosecutor's office intends to insist on the abolition of the acquittal of the verdict and revising the case.

For Radio Liberty Anna Lipina, Pskov

Kristina Gorelik: Recently, the jury was fully justified by Vyacheslav Ivankov, who asked the journalists no longer call him the "Japanese". He was accused of killing two Turkey citizens. Earlier, Yukos security officer Alexei Pichugin and physicist Valentin Danilov condemned the jury. Pichugina - for 20 years in prison, Danilova sentenced to 13 years in a maximum security colony.

Is the institution of jury that the case repeatedly convicted Vyacheslav Ivankov, the accusation suffers a complete fiasco, and in cases where the guilt of the defendants, according to human rights activists, is doubtful, the jury trials a harsh sentence?

Anton Orekh in the article published on the website of the “Daily Journal” of the article has moved, gentlemen of the jurors, ”discusses this too. I will give only some excerpts from the article.

Announcer: “An interesting country is still in our country. Khodorkovsky was imprisoned, and the Japanese was fully justified. The omnipotent prosecutor’s office complains that nothing can do anything. Such meticulous and quick in other cases, here she suddenly does not bother with the search for evidence.

The whole process of Vyacheslav Kirilllych, it seems, took less time than only the reading of the sentence Mikhail Borisych. I quite admit that Ivankov had nothing to do with this particular murder of the two Turks, at least it was not possible to prove the opposite. However, it was also not possible to prove on the Yukos process. But I managed to plant.

In the case of the Japanese, the jury were extremely, which prosecutors immediately called the criminals or relatives of criminals. “Seven out of twelve,” said the acting prosecutor. And the next day it turned out that not seven, but one woman, and even then the story was still under the Soviet Union. This is delicately called "the use of unverified facts." Although in our country, where everyone was either sitting, or wore programs, or knew those who sat and who wore, would not surprise anyone, if the judge and the prosecutor will find unknown convictions.

Practically jurors, like judges in figure skating, give grades for artistry. The accusation and protection fall on them tons of facts and documents, kilometers of testimony, shovele the verbal ore, playing in a voice and helping themselves with his face. If the jury is not at all familiar with business and legal subtleties, he will simply support the one who was more talkative. But if the jury is more or less aware of the circumstances of the case, I heard about it or read it, then his opinion depends entirely on the talkality of people who are not at all to the process of the slightest attitude: journalists, political scientists, human rights activists, just crazy, scandring for days under the windows of the court.

It is impossible for us to protect the jury from either information or from pressure. The jury will earn a miserable penny for such a process, and it is difficult for him to resist the temptation in a few minutes of doubt and one vile act to get more than you earn half a life.

But while there is a trial, he himself is in constant danger, no one protects him and protects him from transparent hints and direct threats. In this situation, the ice can move in any direction. "

Kristina Gorelik: So, we continue to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the jury in Russia.

As for the answer to the question whether the jury court is to blame for the fact that Vyacheslav Ivankov, known as “Japanese”, was justified? Not to blame. The charge, according to the jury, provided insufficient evidence of his guilt.

Is the jury to blame for the fact that in the affairs of the physicist Danilov and the representative of Yukos Alexei Pichugin, strangely tough sentences were made, while human rights activists declared the innocence of the defendants? It’s also not to blame, because the human rights activists who brought out the verdict suspected of bias and initial sympathy for representatives of the prosecution. According to human rights activists, the jury was selected in violation of the law, and in this case, such a trial is difficult to call this trial.

In political affairs, changing the composition of the jury several times, you can achieve the desired composition and accusatory sentence.

In ordinary matters, the prosecutor’s office, even under various pretexts, constantly changing the composition of the jury, may tolerate full fiasco. This happened in the city of Miass of the Chelyabinsk region. With details, Alexander Valiev.

Alexander Valiev: In September 2002, two corpses were found in the apartment of a resident of Miass Arthur Paul, the owner himself and his acquaintance Irina Kirillova. The prosecution was charged to the 26-year-old Evgeny Slabachkov living in the same house. Allegedly, he was visiting Paul that night, killed him as a result of a drunken quarrel, and he eliminated the woman as a witness to the crime. The jury justified the defendant, which became just a shock for the side of the prosecution. Having found the halter to cancel the verdict that one of the jury members turned out to be convicted, the prosecutor's office returned this case to court. With the second college of jury, the story repeated as if by notes: the same acquittal, again discovered relatives of the jury, attracted to the court, and the abolition of the sentence. That's just the third collegium of the jury, again, Slabachkov acquitted.

German Galkin, editor of the newspaper "Evening Chelyabinsk" followed the progress of these processes and wrote about them.

German Galkin: A huge number of inconsistencies in business. That is, each time, twice, at least from the three regional prosecutors, she did not find anything better, as, following the results of justifying decisions, to make requests to the internal affairs bodies, so that they conducted a certain study, provided information on the jury. That is, in fact, the illegal collection of information on the jury was carried out, in fact, it was a crime. I personally talked about this with the senior assistant to the regional prosecutor Viktor Smock and he approximately for me, therefore, he said: "Well, you understand, someone is looking for something, finding something." That is, in the struggle for the honor of the uniform, people did not shy in this situation, and in some others to go for a violation of the law and in order to achieve the abolition of acquittals, all funds are absolutely good.

Alexander Valiev: Three times the acquitted Slabachkov spent a total of about a year in prison. He received no compensation for lost health, reputation, 350 days of his life. However, I must say thanks to the jug for the fact that he lost the rest of his life. Here's what the jury thinks about the court of jury Andrei Aryamov.

Andrei Aryamov: In his radical meaning, the jury court is an apotheosis of the principle of adversarial protection and accusation. It should be noted a very interesting manifestation of this institution in our state. When one of the parties, namely the accusations, instead of accumulating all its forces on the competition in the process, spends serious efforts to collect compromising on members of the jury and does not voice this compromise during the selection of members of the board, holding it, like a trump card, in the sleeve, if it does not suddenly suit the jurisdiction, then at that moment it can always be arranged Touch the Supreme Court and achieve cancellation. Chelyabinsk gained sad fame in this aspect.

Alexander Valiyev: The Slabachkov case for the first in the field of the adversarial process was chosen as the simplest, but it turned out to be a stumbling block. After this incident, as knowledgeable people say, in the Chelyabinsk region the prosecutor’s office, using the general legal illiteracy of the population, is trying by all means to allow only a minimum of criminal cases to consider the jurors.

For Radio Liberty Alexander Valiev, Chelyabinsk

Christina Gorelik: How will the jury behave in civilian processes? In the training center near Moscow, human rights activists and lawyers conducted such an experiment. They called the most ordinary people: a cleaning lady, a wardrobe, a manager and other "jury", explained to them their duties and asked them to bear the verdicts for real civil matters.

The first story is the story of a 15 -year -old girl who was convicted of attempting to kill her father in a state of affect. She managed to sit out for four months before the court discovered a judicial error: the responsibility for this crime occurs only from 16 years. Having been released, the girl demanded compensation for non -pecuniary damage. The question for the jury was this: did the girl deserve compensation and in what size? “Breaking the law”, I made my way to the jury selected by the participants of the experiment and overheard their discussion.

The jury: Since the court recognized her innocent, they were thoroughly versed in, which means that it is really innocent.

Jury: they kept it illegally, which means that it has the right:

The jury: How did the judges judge when they knew that she was 15 years old, she was a minor? How is it so?

The jury: this is already a mistake of judges.

Jurisdiction: imperfect court.

The jury: But four months have passed since it has been superfluous for nothing. So, four minimum salaries.

Jurors: it was necessary to put the maximum salary of our ministers to her. And then the minimum salary, it is generally scanty.

The jury: firstly, for which she is a father, it is not clear. Maybe there is not minimal.

Jurors: it may not be if she is really for something of him. Maybe his father was like that, or maybe she was some kind of drug addict, right there, too, specifically.

Jurisdiction: In order to make a fair decision, you need to know the details.

Kristina Gorelik: So, four minimum labor salaries should receive a girl for the illegal verdict of the court, these jury decided. Little, but the law in this case would not at all be on the side of this girl - production against her was discontinued on formal grounds, it was not justified, therefore, it has no right to demand compensation for non -pecuniary damage, lawyers commented on this situation.

The second story was associated with the dismissal of employees of the Kamyshevsky cotton plant. For several months, employees who did not receive a salary in protest ceased to come to work. The leadership, referring to the violation of the rules for organizing strikes, fired them for absenteeism. Workers went to court. Will they restore them at the work of the jury in the training center?

The jury: The authorities have not informed that they have been striking from this day?

Jurors: they have to fire them.

Jurisdiction: in short, everything should be officially.

The jury: the authorities knew.

Jurisdiction: they had to submit a statement.

Jurisdiction: No. Simply notify your bosses.

The jury: they are right, of course, that they need to demand a salary if they do not pay for several months.

The jury: the question is - is it to restore employees at work? Yes - we restore, no - do not restore.

Severe: Sorry, of course.

The jury: It's a pity that they did not receive a salary.

The jury: Yes, it’s a pity that they did not receive.

The jury: But they are wrong.

Jurisdiction: Do not restore. This applies to us, we can also get the same.

The jury: we will be smart.

Kristina Gorelik: The jury court was severe - not to restore. So, in one case, the jury sided with the victim, in the other - he entered the opposite.

So what should the jury court should be guided when making a verdict? Says a honored lawyer, retired judge Sergei Pashin.

Sergei Pashin: The jury is closer to the population and expresses folklore, ennobled by clarifications that the presiding judge gives. Thus, the honesty and sensitivity of the population in the jury are multiplied by legal representations, such as the presumption of innocence, competitiveness and legal significance of only honest evidence. The jury court also teaches people to decide the fate of their own kind, that is, to be citizens.

Kristina Gorelik: If the jury reflects what is called a popular opinion, but the people exist in the people (sociological surveys show) that the majority of the population, for example, for the death penalty. Many people sympathize with those people who negatively relate to people of a different nationality.

Sergey Pashin: There is the so -called "paradox of Lapierre", this is a psychological concept. Lapierre was an American researcher who sent a postcard to the owners of hotels with a proposal to shelter Chinese students, and the owners of the hotels, not everyone, but a small number was refused. Here, Chinese students went to these addresses and only in two cases felt the difference in maintenance. That is, we are talking about the fact that the people who were attracted to the jury behave do not like in sociological surveys. Они проживают этот процесс и, как правило, оставляют предрассудки, в том числе национальные, в стороне.

Я знаю процесс по делу о взрыве, где присяжная заседательница была одной из тех, кто единогласно оправдал обвиняемого. Когда ее спросили: "Почему же вы оправдали, хотя вы не любите иногородних и не любите кавказцев?" Она сказала: "Да, не люблю, но эти-то невиновны". Вот в этом смысле суда присяжных - не инстинкты толпы, а народное правосознание, то есть лучшее, что есть в человеке.

Кристина Горелик: Каким образом оградить судебную систему от того, чтобы, наоборот, все самое худшее в человеке не повлияло бы на судьбу конкретного подсудимого?

Сергей Пашин: Собственно, рецепты известны. Это, во-первых, честный отбор присяжных с участием сторон. Это обстановка судебного заседания. То есть в этой торжественной обстановке после разъяснений председательствующего присяжные настраиваются на работу в соответствии с правом.

Кристина Горелик: Может сложиться такая ситуация, когда на обычных людей, из народа, что называется, смогут оказывать давление различного рода публикации, высказывания политиков, высказывания тех же самых представители правозащитных и общественных организаций? Те люди, которые не имеют достаточно средств к существованию, могут пойти на такие соглашения с собственной совестью, мягко скажем, и так далее.

Сергей Пашин: Ну, да. Мне кажется, подкупить одного судью гораздо легче, чем 12 присяжных. Тем более, что судья, вот он, у него есть место работы, у него есть кабинет и у него есть люди, которым он доверяет. Иногда это адвокаты, которые живут тем, что кормят судей, иногда это посредники. А присяжные ведь в этих связях не участвуют. Они отбираются неожиданно и для них, и для сторон и их 12 человек. Причем вопрос у нас решается не как в Соединенных Штатах, в основном единогласно, а по большинству голосов. То есть, подкупив одного присяжного, вы совсем не гарантируете положительного исхода дела в вашу пользу. Поэтому мне кажется, что на присяжных как раз воздействовать труднее и если они отобраны честно, действительно, случайно и стороны имели возможность проверить их объективность, задавая им вопросы, и присяжные были ограждены в ходе процесса от постороннего давления, то этот тонкий инструмент даст правильный ответ.

Кристина Горелик: Существует проблема того, что присяжные могут отбираться небеспристрастно, может быть множество разных других проблем.

Сергей Пашин: Сейчас на практике присяжных распускают, когда в процесс вступает новый судья. This is a disgrace. Это ситуация, в которой есть основания подозревать, что с помощью нелегитимных способов следили за позицией присяжных: то ли их опрашивали тайком, то ли вмонтировали в совещательную комнату подслушивающее устройство, ловили их высказывания, поняли, что вердикт будет оправдательный, и произвели рокировку. Один судья выбывает, на смену приходит другой судья, который или которая говорит: "Меня не было с начала процесса, поэтому я и вас распускаю. Соберем новую скамью присяжных". Вот это явное злоупотреблением правом, это грубое нарушение прав обвиняемого.

Я полагаю, два изменения в законодательстве были бы просто очень важными.

The first amendment. Отбор присяжных должен производиться в присутствии сторон. То есть, чтобы начальный список присяжных составлялся в присутствии прокурора и защитника, а уже потом происходил отбор из этих людей. Потому что сейчас не ясно, каким образом секретарь судебного заседания составляет список на процесс: или он включает компьютер, или просто ему посоветовали определенные фамилии.

Вторая поправка. Дело, поступившее на рассмотрение данного состава присяжных, не может быть изъято у этих присяжных ни под каким видом.

Кристина Горелик: Эксперимент с судом присяжных проходил в рамках проекта "Содействие защите прав граждан". Семинары и круглые столы, проходящие в эти дни в Подмосковье в рамках этого же проекта, завершатся в воскресенье встречей российских правозащитников и юристов с комиссаром Совета Европы по правам человека Альваро Хиль-Роблесом. Главная тема дискуссии - доклад комиссара о ситуации с правами человека в России. О десятилетних отношениях России и Совета Европы - в рубрике Людмилы Алексеевой.

Людмила Алексеева: Российская Федерация, как известно, является членом Совета Европы. Мы были приняты в это сообщество 28 февраля 1996 года. 5 мая 1998 года Российская Федерация ратифицировала европейскую конвенцию о защите прав человека и признала право российских граждан на индивидуальное обращение в Европейский суд по правам человека. Это было огромным шагом от нашего советского прошлого в общее будущее России с самыми передовыми странами Европы.

Принятие России в Совет Европы было очень непростым шагом для членов этого сообщества. Нас приняли не потому, что наша страна соответствовала стандартам этого объединения в области демократии и прав человека, а в надежде, что вхождение в Совет Европы поможет России быстрее и легче пройти дистанцию от тоталитарного государства, каковым она была как часть Советского Союза, до действительно демократического правового государства. Поэтому вступление в Совет Европы было обусловлено обязательствами по проведению, прежде всего, законодательных реформ, по приведению нашего законодательства в соответствии со стандартами стран-членов Совета Европы. Принципиальные изменения в законодательстве должны были коренным образом изменить течение жизни в нашей стране.

На первом этапе мы обязались принять новый Уголовный кодекс, новый Угловно-процессуальный кодекс, Гражданский кодекс, а также изменить законодательство, регулирующее пенитенциарную систему. На втором этапе мы обязались принять законы, меняющие судебную систему, - о статусе судей, о прокуратуре и о других юридических профессиях, а также законы о положении национальных меньшинств, о свободе религии и закон о введении института уполномоченного по правам человека.

С тех пор прошло почти 10 лет. Что удалось сделать за это время для того, чтобы наша страна стала полноценным членом Совета Европы? На этот вопрос должен был ответить доклад комиссара Совета Европы по правам человека Альваро Хиль-Роблеса. 31 июля в Москве состоится обстоятельное обсуждение этого доклада на конференции, подготовленной российским правозащитным сообществом, в присутствии автора доклада. Этот доклад - плод его длительного путешествия по России.

Вот что пишет об этом он сам в предисловии к докладу.

Диктор: "На протяжении четырех недель мы проехали более 20 тысяч километров и сменили более 15 самолетов для того, чтобы посетить разные регионы. Состоялось 48 встреч с представителями федеральных и региональных органов власти, судейского корпуса и правоохранительных органов. Мы посетили 38 учреждений, в том числе больницы, школы, дома для престарелых и 11 мест лишения свободы".

Людмила Алексеева: Методику сбора материала Альваро Хиль-Роблес тоже поясняет в предисловии.

Диктор: "Я начинаю все свои официальные визиты со встреч с представителями неправительственных организаций в посещаемых мною странах. Очень часто взгляды гражданского общества отличаются от мнения властей. Сравнение этих двух мнений позволяет лучше определить те слабые места, где требуется углубленная работа. И на этот раз я не отступил от данного правила, все мои посещения регионов начинались со встречи с представителями тех неправительственных организаций, которые наиболее активны в области защиты прав человека. Эти встречи были открытыми, в них мог участвовать любой желающий. Мы не вели точной статистики, но полагаем, что встретились более чем со 100 неправительственными организациями, что значительно помогло нам в понимании особого характера существующих проблем".

Людмила Алексеева: Общее заключение комиссара Совета Европы по правам человека о нынешней России таково.

Диктор: "Разумеется, новая российская демократия еще далека от совершенства. Но нельзя отрицать того, что она существует, и добилась успехов.

Действительно, всего лишь 15 лет назад Европу разделял надвое железный занавес. В то время СССР был государством, в котором запрещалась и подавлялась любая свобода слова, любая частная инициатива, любая либеральная мысль. Советские граждане были лишены самых главных свобод".

Людмила Алексеева: Альваро Хиль-Роблес отмечает, с его точки зрения, очень серьезный момент.

Диктор: "Речь идет о проблеме смертной казни. Эта мера наказания по-прежнему предусмотрена российским законодательством, хотя на ее применении наложен мораторий с августа 1996 года. То что протокол номер 6 европейской конвенции о защите прав человека все еще не ратифицирован, является серьезным невыполнением обязательств, принятых Россией в момент ее вступления в нашу организацию, и вызывает определенные вопросы".

Людмила Алексеева: Очень вежливо и осторожно Альваро Хиль-Роблес отмечает и то, что гораздо более определенно и резко свидетельствовали ему многие граждане России.

Диктор: "Некоторые реформы, недавно осуществленные правительством, а также анонсированные в последнее время, вызвали беспокойство в обществе относительно приверженности демократическим завоеваниям, вызывая при этом неуверенность в их сохранении. Обеспокоенность, возникающая в обществе, была весьма очевидной во время нашего визита".

Людмила Алексеева: Альваро Хиль-Роблес ограничился освещением самых важных, по его мнению, вопросов в области прав человека в Российской Федерации, не устанавливая иерархии их важности.

Диктор: "Я ограничился основными вопросами, связанными с юридической реформой и с положением в пенитенциарной системе, а также с национальными меньшинствами, социальными проблемами и положением уязвимых групп - женщин, детей и пожилых людей. Я рассматриваю вопросы, связанные с ксенофобией и расизмом, с защитой прав человека в вооруженных силах, с функционированием правозащитных институтов. Я проанализировал также вопрос свободы прессы и выражения своего мнения, а также остановился на проблематике участия гражданского общества в системе контроля над эффективным соблюдением прав человека. Я остановился и на сложной ситуации, которая существует в Чеченской республике".

Людмила Алексеева: Далее следуют рекомендации по каждому разделу доклада. Из их перечня очевидно, что комиссар Совета Европы по правам человека видит не только несовершенство нашей демократии и правовой системы, как он вежливо выразился в докладе, но и вопиющее беззаконие на каждом шагу, и беззащитность человека перед лицом властьимущих, их жестокость и корыстолюбие. Об этом гостю, каким был в нашей стране Альваро Хиль-Роблес, кричать не принято. Об этом должны говорить и кричать граждане этой стране.

Доклад высокого должностного лица такой представительной и уважаемой организации, как Совет Европы, отмечает самые болевые точки в сфере прав человека в России и поможет в искоренении недостатков и пороков и в законодательстве, и в практике в этой сфере. Но главная роль в этой борьбе принадлежит самим россиянам. Совет Европы, безусловно, будет в этом нам помогать, но ни Совет Европы, ни кто-либо еще не добьется уважения российских властей к гражданам страны и к законам, если они сами этого не сделают.

Кристина Горелик: Людмила Алексеева рассказывала о том, как оценивает ситуацию с правами человека в России Совет Европы.

До сегодняшней программы героями нашей рубрики "Персона" становились люди, живущие сегодня и продолжающие помогать другим. Сегодня мы расскажем о человеке, который совершил, ну: действительно героический поступок - он спас троих детей. Ценой собственной жизни. Даю слово Игорю Телину, Саранск.

Игорь Телин: Это произошло возле села Рыбкино Ковылкинского района Мордовии. Недалеко от села протекает река Мокша, сюда Владимир Спирин приехал вместе с супругой на рыбалку.

Иван Лазарев: В этом месте Мокша разделяется на два рукава, к тому же у правого берега есть пляж, да середины вода не глубокая, а дальше следует резкий обрыв, там омут.

Игорь Телин: Об омуте, как рассказал житель Рыбкина Иван Лазарев, знают местные, но не знают приезжие. Поэтому приехавшие сюда отдохнуть две семьи из Саранска спокойно позволили своим детям купаться самостоятельно. Мальчишки плескались на мелководье, а потом, заплыв чуть-чуть подальше, ребята, не почувствовав дна под ногами, начали тонуть.

Лидия Спирина: Кричать стали, тонут: ну видно было, они уже тонут, но он сразу, он был такой отзывчивый, любого можно спросить, только хорошее о нем все говорят.

Игорь Телин: Рассказывает супруга Владимира Спирина Лидия. Когда ребята стали тонуть, первым на помощь бросился Владимир.

Лидия Спирина: Он тут же с места рванул на этот зов, а вот они там, кто я не знаю, дядя, и мама в воду прыгнули. Но они дальше нас были, он-то наперерез, а этот мужчина, он почему-то очень тихо шел, он за него уже там, один на спину ему вспрыгнул, двое с боку, держатся. Я кричу: "Мужчина, ну помогите, он же не выдержит, у него же спина болит, он не может!" Я знала всегда, что у него судороги были, просто, не в воде, просто так, судороги.

Игорь Телин: Владимир Спирин был инвалидом второй группы и, по словам его супруги, ему даже заходить в воду было опасно. Тем не менее, он немедленно кинулся в воду, спасать чужих детей. Испуганные ребята буквально вцепились в своего спасителя. Один обхватил его за шею сзади, двое других находились по бокам. Владимир нашел в себе силы вытащить их на мелководье и передать в руки подоспевших родителей.

Но здесь силы покинули Спирина.

Лидия Спирина: И он еще раз вот только выглянул, и я ему кричу: "Ложись, ложись на спину, может быть, отдохнешь!" И все, он пропал под водой.

Игорь Телин: Отцы спасенных ребят какое-то время ныряли, пытаясь найти спасителя, но все тщетно. После этого родители с детьми сели в машины и уехали в неизвестном направлении. Фамилии и место проживания этих людей неизвестны до сих пор.

Водолазы МЧС, вызванные на место трагедии, обнаружили тело Спирина лишь через несколько дней, в 15 метрах ниже по течению.

Водолаз: Это место считается опасным, в этом году здесь уже погибли 3 человека, вот, Владимир стал, к сожалению, четвертым.

Игорь Телин: Спирина похоронили в селе Рыбкино, откуда он был родом. У Владимира осталось две дочери, семья потеряла кормильца. Односельчане погибшего и сотрудники Ковылкинского райотдела милиции, проводившие проверку всех обстоятельств трагедии, считают, что Владимир совершил настоящий подвиг.

Односельчанин: Ну, это не каждый пойдет в воду, если там кто-то тонет, ведь не каждый бросится спасать человека. Там еще тонет вот человек, еще вцепится в него, может и сам он утонуть.

Игорь Телин: Сотрудники МЧС Мордовии намерены представить Владимира Спирина к награждению медалью "За спасение утопающих", посмертно:

Для Радио Свобода Игорь Телин, Саранск

Кристина Горелик: На этом мы завершаем программу "Дорога Свободы".