In the opposition

Process. Issue 22

December 9, 2009 Daily Journal

The court continues to interrogate the witnesses of the prosecutions, which in fact do not turn out to be such, and continues to reject the defense petitions - this time regarding the resumption of the broadcast from the courtroom. The accusation continues to demonstrate a peculiar approach in working with witnesses: it turned out that the witness Alexander Ilchenko passes the accused in a certain case directly related to Yukos.
What is happening in court at the request of the "Daily Journal" is commented by the lawyer of Mikhail Khodorkovsky Vadim Kluvgan :

“Regarding interrogations, I can only repeat that an incomprehensible action is happening: the prosecutors bring people, calling them witnesses to the accusations, and these people not only can not confirm anything from the accusation, but also know nothing. Then there are many hours of or multi -day debates on the scenario given by the charge. Since answering, to put it mildly, the strange questions of prosecutors, witnesses are inevitably forced to either get confused, or think up something, or suppose. The side of the protection then has to perform the work of the Assenizers in order to clean all this. This prosecutors do not move to the provenness of the prosecution in any way; he moves to his refutation each time, with every new witness. The witness of Vladimir Gulin was interrogated for a long time, because this is a rather informed person, although, as he repeated all the time, with a not very solid memory that constantly fails him. Everything went faster with Alexander Ilchenko, because the answers were clearer. Nevertheless, each of them confirmed that what they did in connection with the service or some partnerships with Yukos was ordinary, common activity, which everyone is engaged in, this is well known, and there is nothing in it that unlawful, but even strange or unusual. In Ilchenko, this sounded in almost every response - he checked his actions not only with the requirements of the law, but also with the inspection, in particular, by tax authorities. There have never been any complaints, until then - I will add from myself - until the FAS team was given.

The fact that Ilchenko simultaneously passes the accused in another case is another confirmation of the parallel investigation and methods of working with witnesses. Since all these so -called other things are actually about the same thing, they put a person in an extremely ambiguous and dangerous position. As the accused, he has the right not to give any testimony at all. But when he comes to court as a witness, he is obliged to truthfully answer all questions and is responsible for refusing to testify and for giving false testimonies. This means that no one will prevent the investigation from using his testimony against him as against the accused. All this has already acquired the effect of an avalanche. We talked about this at the very beginning of the process, when they stated the petitions for the termination of the case due to systemic and mass violations of the rights and interests of persons involved in it - violations of such a scale that no longer allows us to resolve this case legally.

The prosecutors thought over the petitions for as many as five days, and someone clearly thought with them, because, for example, what the prosecutor Lachtin read under the guise of his opinion, even lexically did not correspond to his turnover of speech, he confused, stumbled, lost the pages. I realized that the prosecutors, in one way or another denying this in words, actually confirm what we are talking about all the time: that they are afraid of any publicity, any living word, especially what is associated with this parallel consequence and parallel interrogations of witnesses. This was again confirmed by the nature of all answers and objections. All links to the interests of the case, to the fact that publicity can affect witnesses, is just ridiculous, especially when you consider that all these witnesses are already interrogated by no means what time. Of course, the thoroughness with which the Parties of the Protection is analyzed is noteworthy, up to the timing, the public performances are analyzed. The behavior of the judge, who rejected the petitions, as usual, without his decision, becomes already depressing on its scale-not because our petitions are deviated, although it is still strange that one side is always wrong, and the other is always right, but because the court is obliged to motivate its decisions by law. All that we hear as a motivation is that the court does not find legal grounds to satisfy the petition. I can’t help but state that in this way the court plays the prosecution: if he does not refute the arguments of the defense, this by default means that the charge does not need to bother himself with argumentation - he will do so. What is the accusation. ”

Physiological pressure

Each stage of the process, by virtue of its structural looseness and genre blur, makes the observer include an artistic imagination that refers him to Gogol, then to Dostoevsky, then to Sukhovo-Kobylin, to Kafka, to “Alice in the Wonderland”, then God also knows what.

Life, as you know, in its individual manifestations gives one hundred points forward even the most sophisticated imagination, and no bold grotesque will never overcome life.

So here. The playwright of the absurd seems to be a tedious protocol life compared to some dialogs and speech passages of participants in this infinite action. For example, it seemed to me the purest model of the aesthetics of the absurdity, which neglects, as the aesthetics mentioned, the despicable philistine meaning, such a prosecutor’s replica: “They are accused of legalizing the funds received during theft of oil.” It is only a pity that the mundane judge with his desperate appeal “Valery Alekseevich, stop!”, Interrupted the free and inspired prosecutor flight.

Extremely colorfully colorful in their genuine theatricality and wide open are open for limitless directorial fantasy and some dialogs. Such, for example:

Lakhtin: "Red Hall" is written here. "

Gulin: “Red Hall? We have lunch. ”

Lakhtin: “Have you discussed issues there? In the Red Hall? "

Judge: “Will we write down the question in the protocol? "Have you discussed issues at dinner in the Red Hall?!"

Lakhtin: "During lunch, issues are also discussed."

Well, isn't Chekhov!

And then suddenly a charming small-town intonation lean out, borrowed either from Sholom Aleicham, either from Babel, or an elderly neighbor in the country village: “They will give me today to interrogate the accusations or will not let me interrogate the witness?!”

But all this, of course, fades to the outstanding prosecutor’s impromptu, having every chance of entering modern folklore: “Reading newspapers could exert physiological pressure on the witness.”

If in the field of justice the prosecutor does not have so many chances for worldwide recognition, then in Russian literature he already secured a place for himself. You can rest.

Leonid Semloths

Artist Alexander Kotlyarov