In the opposition

Previously guilty

June 7, 2013 Alexander Podrabinek

No one expects a miracle from the Russian court. No one hopes for justice, objectivity, the search for judicial truth and strict adherence to criminal procedure laws. For a long time learned: the law is a taiga, the prosecutor is a bear. We live in Russia, we know the orders. But even with all our understanding of the innate domestic lawlessness, we still hope for observance - no, no laws, but at least procedural decency. And we will get a bite from the trial - here are the laws, here you have decency!

The “Big” “Big” process in the “Swamp case” began on June 6 in the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow did not leave hope either for justice or the observance of decency. In the Zamoskvoretsky court itself, there was no suitable hall, into which two cells can be silent for the defendants, so the hearing was transferred to the Moscow City Court. By 11 in the morning, a decent amount of riot police, police, journalists, supporters and participants in the protest movement had accumulated around the Moscow City Court. Several young Prochrevsky clowns came, dressing themselves as a cucumber and beets, which once again confirmed their vegetable origin and state of intelligence.

Supporters of the defendants stood with posters in support of their comrades. One of the picketers stood on the other side of the street, and some journalists approached him to ask a couple of questions. Near the picket, a policeman instantly grew up from the traffic police and fined the curious for violation of the rules of the road - on this narrow street, everyone crossed the road straight, not reaching the pedestrian crossing. In essence, he was correctly fined, although this is unprecedented for Moscow.

If the chairman of the Zamoskvoretsky court, Natalya Nikishina, were as careful in compliance with the law as that traffic cop, then everyone would probably be happy to pay fines for the wrong crossing of the street. The meeting was on the closed doors, which is fully complies with the requirements of the law. The lawyers of the defendants in breaks went out into the corridor and told sad things. Judge Nikishin practically does not hide her interest in the outcome of the process and in every possible way helps the charges.

The defendant Artyom Savelov, as it turned out in court, did not provide a copy of the indictment. Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks absolutely clearly and unequivocally: “The judge, at the request of the party or on his own initiative, returns the criminal case to the prosecutor to eliminate the obstacles to his consideration by the court in cases where ... a copy of the indictment, the indictment or the indictment was not awarded the accused.” Here, as if you want, you don’t want, but the case must be returned. But what is mandatory for a decent court, then for Zamoskvoretsky - nonsense. The petition of the defender Savelov lawyer Farit Murtazin on the return of the case to the prosecutor’s office did not reject and did not make - she simply did not make a decision on him! If she rejected him, it would be lawlessness, and so - indecency, the highest form of judicial arbitrariness.

The defendant Sergey Krivov told Judge Disad. All other defendants, with the exception of one, who left this issue at the discretion of the court, supported the discharge. The judge went to consult with him to the deliberation room. She consulted for a long time and decided to trust herself, and reject the withdrawal.

In a completely different way, Nikishin reacted to the requests of the prosecution. The representative of the prosecutor's office asked to extend all the defendants for the preventive measures for six months. She did not complicate herself not only by motivation (which, by law, is mandatory when submitting such a petition), but even by listing all the defendants by name. As the defender of Nikolai Caucasian lawyer Vadim Kluvgant said, “So, it’s chokh - that’s who has something, the prosecutor said, then everyone and extend it.” Speaking in court with objections, the Livant called the prosecutor’s position “egregious mockery of both law and people”.

However, this did not bother the judge at all. She satisfied the prosecutor's office in full. Apparently, Vladimir Akimenkov, losing vision in prison, falls under this decision. The judge, of course, is indifferent. Her attitude towards the defendants and lawyers, if we speak softly, can be called indecent.

Ten in custody of the defendants were located in two “aquariums”, five people each. In the Aquarium there are four slots to talk with the defendants, but the convoy allowed lawyers to use only two. The other two, according to escort and bailiffs, are technical. To talk with their client, lawyers lined up in line, and the defendants too. To requests to call the convoy to order, the judge waved and offered lawyers to go to his client in the investigative insulator and talk there.

The lawyers occurred, and a completely disgusting scene. Artem Savelov tried to explain to the court why he supported his lawyer’s request to return the case to the prosecutor's office. The trouble is that Savelov suffers from stuttering, and Judge Nikishin, preventing him from ending with difficulty, interrupted him all the time with the same question: “Why are you supporting the request?”

This is the style and level of Russian justice.

A preliminary hearing did not crawl to the middle. The continuation was scheduled the next day.

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Sergey Karpov and Alexander Podrabinek