Translated material
Students in courts
Students in courts How public defenders defend the rights of detainees at rallies
Author: Katya Moroko
Illustrations: Arina Istomina
Publication: 24/12/19
Author: Katya Moroko
Illustrations: Arina Istomina
Publication: 24/12/19
When the time for mass street protests ends, the time for mass trials begins. In August 2019, there were so many courts that professional human rights defenders did not have time to provide legal assistance to all detainees. Then students became involved in this work, who, as public defenders, prepared petitions and appeared in courts to protect the protesters’ right to peaceful assembly and freedom of opinion. Employees of the Human Rights Center (HC) “Memorial” * and OVD-Info told DOXA how public defenders were trained, and students shared their own experience of speaking in court.
*Memorial Society is included in the register of “foreign agents”. We are forced to leave this warning at the request of the state.
“No one was ready for such a Moscow summer,” - three months later, OVD-Info volunteer coordinator Anna Romashchenko is still talking emotionally about the protests that forced thousands of Muscovites onto the streets, dissatisfied first with the detention of journalist Ivan Golunov, and then with the exclusion of independent deputies from voting to the Moscow City Duma. At the July 27 rally alone, according to OVD-Info, 1,373 people were detained - this is an absolute record for post-Soviet Russia. At the rally on August 3, 1,001 people were detained: “Like in an Arabian fairy tale,” Anna jokes, “we don’t have life at all, but a fairy tale.” In total, over the summer the number of detainees exceeded three thousand.
Several years ago, in the wake of rallies organized by Alexei Navalny, OVD-Info and the Memorial Human Rights Center joined forces to provide legal assistance to those detained at protest rallies. This assistance includes a telephone consultation, a lawyer visiting a police station, assistance in Russian courts and filing a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. In July of this year, it became clear to human rights activists that the number of detainees would be greater than usual, and their own legal forces and volunteer base would not be enough. Then Tamila Imanova, an employee of the legal department of the Memorial Human Rights Center and a recent graduate of the Higher School of Economics, decided to write a post on social networks to ask for help from students who could defend in court those detained at protests. At first, Tamil's friends and acquaintances, law students from HSE, responded, but later not only lawyers, but also journalists, political scientists, philosophers began to offer their help - and not only from HSE, but also from Moscow State University, MGIMO, Shaninka, Moscow State Law Academy, Russian School of school of private law) and other universities, about 30 people in total:
“In politically motivated cases, the most important thing is to correctly prepare all petitions and present the evidence base in order to have further grounds to apply to the ECHR,” explains Tamila. “It was important for us to tell the detainees and their families that there is no need to hire an expensive lawyer, because these courts are not about seeking justice. This is a case where a well-prepared student will do better than a professional lawyer who has never worked on such cases.”
For both Memorial Human Rights Center and OVD-Info, working with students is a familiar format: every year about ten people from different universities come to them for legal internships. But this year, given the huge number of arrests and the shortage of professional human rights defenders, the internship had its own specifics: students were required to act in court as public defenders. Recognizing the fact that no one has a monopoly on helping other people, human rights activists sought to involve as many students as possible who offered their help. According to Russian legislation, in the process of bringing to administrative responsibility any capable citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached the age of majority can be a defense attorney. At the same time, the Human Rights Center “Memorial” and OVD-Info promise a certain standard of quality to all detainees who apply, which means they are responsible for those people who volunteered to help. Therefore, before starting work as a public defender, all students had to undergo appropriate theoretical training and go to court with more experienced defenders.
“Before, it was really a story about internships and practices related to office work; here we emphasized that this internship is aimed at defense in courts,” says Denis Shedov, a lawyer at the human rights center Memorial and OVD-Info, who trained students during July and helped them become public defenders. “Since many students have not had this experience before, we included weekly introductory seminars and workshops in the internship, discussing complex or new issues directly related to defense in the courts.” In-person seminars were held on Fridays, then over the weekend the guys studied the materials, until Wednesday they went to court as listeners, and by the end of the week almost everyone was ready to work independently on individual cases. They came to the next face-to-face meeting to discuss their recently acquired experience of acting as a public defender.”
There were enough instructions and workshops even for non-law students. Employees of the Memorial Human Rights Center and OVD-Info decided not to create artificial barriers based on the principle of having a legal education. A diploma is not yet a guarantee of a person’s competence, Denis Shedov is sure: “Among our defense students there are students without a legal education who wanted to try themselves as defense attorneys in courts, and who succeeded. You can study the materials on your own, discuss complex issues with experts, and develop competencies. This is an interesting interdisciplinary mix. They pay more attention to some questions that seem elementary to people with legal experience and advise how best to explain a certain issue in our instructions and materials addressed to a wide range of people.”
It’s good when a person is not left alone with a system that has already caused him quite a lot of trouble and brought him traumatic experiences.
Regardless of education, gender, age and status of the public defender, verdicts in protest cases are rarely acquittal. But this does not mean that all the work of the defense was done in vain. “With regard to ships, there are several criteria for measuring success,” explains Denis Shedov. “We can say that it’s good when an innocent person is acquitted and he is not punished. On the other hand, good is when in a particular case everything has been done to record violations committed in court and effectively appeal them in the next instance, and after a couple of three to five years win this case. As a rule, this is a marathon, not a sprint. It’s good when a person is not left alone with a system that has already caused him quite a lot of trouble and brought him traumatic experiences. A person was detained in the city when he or she did nothing wrong, then kept for several hours in a stuffy paddy wagon without water, food or the opportunity to go to the toilet, and now he is being tried. It is important that at this moment he feels the solidarity of other people, feels that he is not alone, and this world does not consist only of evil and trauma.”
The busiest month for human rights defenders and their clients was August. That month, students and their more experienced colleagues defended more than 600 cases, some of which spanned multiple hearings. It was impossible to find a defender for every person who applied, even with the active participation of students. Then the defenders took not only those wards with whom they would go to court, but also those whom they could at least advise and help draw up the necessary documents.
At first glance, it seems that all rally cases are like two peas in a pod - according to the Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional principles of freedom of assembly and expression, a person who does not harm anyone should not be punished. This contradicts any international documents, so the legal qualifications for these cases are quite simple. But on the other hand, each case has its own nuances that must be taken into account in order to correctly build a line of defense: for example, whether the person was a participant in the action or passed by, whether we are talking about a journalist, an observer or a voting member of the election commission. The facts in each case are unique and must be translated into legal terms because they may ultimately affect the legal character of a particular case.
“The students take defense very seriously, it’s something incredible for them. One day our defense attorney spent 11 hours in court. Some of the guys achieved unexpected successes, the decisions of the first instance were overturned, but these, of course, are rare cases,” says coordinator Anna Romashchenko.
There are far fewer hearings now, but this is far from the end. Throughout the next year, defense lawyers will have to work in the courts of first instance, prepare appeals against sentences and complaints to the European Court of Human Rights. Complaints to the European Court are a separate area of work, dealt with by those who do not have the opportunity to go to the courts, but have a desire to help those affected by illegal actions of the authorities. Already, several hundred cases have been processed and are ready to be sent to the ECHR.
Working with students as public advocates has become a streamlined process this summer. Students organically joined the human rights movement and became an important part of it. Everyone can share responsibility and help in the fight for justice, this is how civil society works. “We build our work on horizontal principles, because a story about a clear vertical and distribution from one center is not a story about civil society,” Denis Shedov is sure. “We took on the role of providing a platform on the basis that we have been dealing with these issues for many years, we have accumulated experience, and we offer it to everyone who is interested. This is a story about creating a community of people who are not indifferent to human rights, who are interested in jurisprudence and who want, with their knowledge, skills, to participate in socially significant projects to protect people who have been subjected to political repression.”
Graduate of the “Jurisprudence” program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, master’s student Shaninka “Political Philosophy”, 1st year
“My desire to become a public defender developed gradually. Even in my second year of undergraduate studies, I became interested in public international law and wrote a course work on the issue of extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights. But then I didn’t think that I would be a public defender or a human rights activist; I was interested in jurisprudence as a science. It all started, predictably, with the start of the summer events of 2019. Then I realized that if I was really interested in this, then I could not stand aside while massive violations unfolded here and now. Writing articles after the fact or reading reports on human rights while the police are turning around young guys in the square is not a completely honest position for me.
My first performance was spontaneous. Then I came to court just to see how an already experienced lawyer worked during the trial and so that the next day I would be ready to speak myself. But in front of the hall we met other guys who were also detained at the rally. They had no defenders. Therefore, the lawyer hastily sent me to one of the meetings, because at least some defense attorney is better than none. Before the trial, he remembered the famous expression that the best way to teach someone to swim is to throw him into the water. Before I even had time to come to my senses, I was already standing in front of the judge and reading from a piece of paper. I was terribly worried. It's simply unrealistic. Therefore, I prepared for my next performance half a day, night and all morning. I didn’t want to miss anything, I printed out all the applications in several copies, I had a thick folder with documents and blank sheets of paper in case of unforeseen circumstances. Of course, I overdid it.
Before that, I had only been in court a couple of times, and only at civil trials. It seems to me that they are very different from administrative ones. These were meetings in which our civil law teacher was a representative. Disappointment in our judicial system came already then. When I already started performing myself, I realized that there was no need to worry, because I still couldn’t expect a positive outcome. During the process, it is only important to appeal as many violations as possible before the ECHR. Judges are often quite indifferent to cases and to you; some notice how hard you try and sometimes show leniency. The atmosphere in the courts is generally quite gloomy. One time the judge yelled at me because I forgot to stand up when I addressed her. I have never felt such a hateful gaze on myself. Another time, the judge’s assistant called my clients “navalnyats” (“we will consider these navalnyats in half an hour”).
The court simply does not fulfill its role, but verifies what was prepared at the police department. They don't usually talk about this at universities.
You can endlessly spin stories about gross violations in the courts or violations by the police, but in my opinion, the most outrageous thing is to see how the judicial system works in these types of cases in general. If we summarize what the accusation is based on, we get the following picture: a protocol on an administrative offense, two reports from police officers (most likely not the ones who detained), two explanations from the same police officers as witnesses in the case. Everything is a carbon copy. And carbon copies of another twenty to thirty guys from the same department. Only the names are different. When you try to explain to the court that this is a vicious practice, when witnesses in the case are employees who are responsible for their unlawful actions and are interested parties. You hear in response the textbook phrase “the court has no reason not to trust the police officers” or “their testimony is consistent, consistent and does not raise doubts.” There is no adversarial nature in the process; photographs and videos that confirm the falsity of these accusations may not be included in the case. Defense witnesses may not be called, even though the court has a duty to do so, if the witness is in the courthouse. The court simply does not fulfill its role, but verifies what was prepared at the police department. They don't usually talk about this at universities.
I think that the human rights movement in Russia still has to grow and grow. Because human rights protection is not only hype in the press. This is, of course, an important part, but not the main one, it is also such painstaking work. I plan to connect my professional activities with human rights protection. My parents and family want me to find a “normal job,” but deep down they are probably happy for me.”
RGSU, political science program, 3rd year
“It all started when I learned about the arrest of my friend at the rally on July 27. He said that a report was drawn up against him under Part 20.2 Part 5 and there would be a trial in a week. I decided that I would go to support him in court. A few days before the trial, it turned out that my friend would not have a defense attorney, and I thought that I could probably help him by acting as a defense attorney, in any case, it would be better than without a defense attorney at all. During these two days, I tried my best to learn everything about the specifics of this activity, the OVD-Info website helped a lot, where all the necessary information about defense in courts under the protest article was collected. I also took the application templates there.
This is important to me: after the summer protests, I realized that I cannot just sit at home and do nothing while others defend common civil rights and are persecuted for it.
Before my first case, I was quite worried, since I had never been to the courts before and had not encountered all this in any way. I didn’t have a legal education either; I’m studying to be a political scientist. But in the end, everything went well, we made all the necessary motions, we were even able to call and question as a witness the man who was in the paddy wagon with my friend; we met him absolutely by chance in court. Naturally, this hardly influenced the decision of our court; my friend was fined 10 thousand rubles, but for the prospect of appealing to the ECHR, the work we did was very important. After this, another acquaintance approached me, who was also about to have a trial under the protest clause, but there was no defense lawyer. I was also preparing to go with him, but he was still provided with a defense attorney from OVD-Info, so this time I was able to observe the work of a professional defense attorney. From him I learned that OVD-Info has volunteers who are specifically involved in defense in courts. On the same day I left a request. I thought that this way I could protect not only my friends, but also other people who need help.
This is important to me: after the summer protests, I realized that I cannot just sit at home and do nothing while others defend common civil rights and are persecuted for it. I made a difficult decision that for now I would not go to unauthorized rallies, and in order not to feel like a bad person, it was important for me to do something useful for civil society.
The human rights movement in Russia is now going through very difficult times. The Presidential Human Rights Council was, in fact, dispersed, the movement of Lev Ponomarev* and Andrei Babushkin was liquidated, and pressure was put on the Memorial Human Rights Center. The authorities see the human rights movement as an institution that impedes the activities of the state power machine. But I don’t think that the state has enough strength to completely suppress human rights protection in Russia. This summer has shown that there are a lot of young, active people who are ready to engage in human rights assistance, which means that this movement has a future.”
* Lev Ponomarev is included in the register of “foreign agents”. We are forced to leave this warning at the request of the state.
Graduate of the Journalism program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, now master's program in Lawyer in Justice at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 1st year
“When in the summer there were rallies in Moscow every weekend, I was very worried about it all. When I saw how people were tied up for no reason, tears welled up. By chance I saw an advertisement from a teacher at the university where I study, looking for volunteers for the courts. I agreed without thinking. It is important for me to understand that I am not sitting still doing nothing. There is a problem, there is a state of affairs in the country that does not suit me very much. And I understand that there is an opportunity not just to write or talk about it, but to take real and, most importantly, useful actions.
When I went to law school, I had several mini-goals. Firstly, I wanted to become more educated in legal matters. Secondly, I was thinking about somehow leaving journalism for law. And it was precisely participation in the courts that allowed me to understand for myself what it is and how it looks and feels from the inside. In total I had about seventeen cases, and once I spent a whole day in the Lublin court, as six cases were heard in a row before two different judges.
The first time it was very scary to speak in court. I spent half the night reading the Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, the Code of Administrative Offenses and composing a speech. I have been to court before, but only as a journalist. From the outside, of course, it looks much easier. Before the first performance there was a wild fear of the judge, but it quickly evaporated.
A good defender must think and think very quickly. It seems to me that it is impossible to prepare for the process 100%. You can prepare all the motions, but you don’t know how the police witnesses will answer, what questions the judge will have, or what mood he will be in. It's amazing how different our judges are. There are those who do not even listen to the arguments of the client and his representative, but there are active judges. Moreover, those who are not trying to strangle you instead of the prosecutor, but, on the contrary, are trying to figure everything out. They still issue convictions, but often with the smallest possible fine. For example, judge Kuznetsov in the Lublin court is one of the best. He asked questions, kept notes, and constantly clarified something. Never before have I seen a judge so eager to understand the situation. The active role of the court is, of course, a controversial principle, but I now cite Kuznetsov to everyone as an example of the positive implementation of this principle.
Another surprising thing at the trials: once during the interrogation there were guys from riot police who, after the trials, asked for forgiveness from their clients. It’s a small thing, but nice.”
Kirill
MGIMO
“In the summer of 2019, a repost of a post by Tamila Imanova from the Memorial Human Rights Center appeared on the VKontakte news feed saying that they were looking for lawyers for protest cases, and I responded. I concluded that, without interfering with my main internship, I would be able to gain real experience working in courts under the Code of Administrative Offenses and with the ECHR. While I'm a student, I want to try myself in different fields. In addition, such experience is much more interesting than ordinary office legal work, and, even more so, studying at the university, which becomes increasingly boring closer to graduation.
I also believe that I am doing a good deed.
In my first independent hearing as a defense attorney, I confused the judge’s disinterest with a readiness to make a not guilty verdict—naive, I know. It was a little scary, it seemed that some mistake could only make things worse, although in our cases it is actually very difficult to make things worse.
I am the kind of person who takes a lot to heart and worries. The goal of the defender is also to prevent a person from losing heart, not to leave him alone with the system. Usually the emotions that my clients experience - fear, anger, bewilderment, uncertainty - are transmitted to me to one degree or another, so I need to control not only myself, but also the other person. I know that this quality often interferes with my life and, probably, does not bring any benefit here either, but I don’t think I can change myself. I feel a little ashamed that I cannot actually ensure that the court takes our side and protects the rights of my clients. Although we all, of course, understand that justice cannot be found in our courts.
“What you did was flies. What the police did was probably more serious, these were cutlets. But let’s not mix cutlets with flies.”
In the materials of my client’s case, I discovered that various documents (protocols, explanations), although signed by the same policeman, were in completely different handwriting. It is clear to any reasonable person that these are the signatures of different people, and in general, forging a signature is a crime. The court of first instance ignored all this, the court of second instance, in response to my arguments in the complaint, called a policeman, who allegedly signed all this and the court accepted his explanation that these were all his signatures and he was allegedly in a hurry. The court rejected our request to conduct a handwriting examination.
From the funny thing in the courts, I can remember one phrase from the judge of the Golovinsky court: “What you did was flies. What the police did was probably more serious, these were cutlets. But let’s not mix cutlets with flies.” It is clear that judges themselves are not free, and not only in protest cases. There are almost never prosecutors in these cases, although we always ask them to be called as the prosecution, based on the practice of the ECHR under the convention. Their absence is a violation of the right to a fair trial.”
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Faculty of Law, 4th year
“I did an internship at the human rights center Memorial Human Rights Center, and my internship occurred during the summer protests. At the end of July, my supervisor wrote to the interns by email that they needed help in the courts, since there were a lot of arrests and the lawyers couldn’t cope. We responded and began participating in meetings in August.
Why is it important? Such a simple question, but difficult to answer. I want to live in a legal democratic society and I don’t want people to be detained for peaceful assemblies and expressing their opinions in public space, much less to be prosecuted for this. Therefore, acting as a public defender is also an expression of one’s civic position.
First, I came to a meeting with my friend, looked at the procedure, learned how and what to declare and how to behave in general. The next day I already had my first meetings. Before studying at university, I had never been to court. In my first year I went to court as an assignment for the “Judicial Power” course, and then for the first time I found myself in court as a student.
My first performance as a public defender was terrible, I was very nervous, and everything went wrong because I had several clients on the same day, and it was in the same court on different floors. When my client was called, I was on another floor with another client, because he should have been called earlier. It was all difficult and nerve-wracking; the defendant also did not understand what was required of her. I ended up giving her the paperwork to sign, which apparently upset the judge because she called a break. The first meeting was a bit of a mess, but after that everything was super good! I’ve already lost count and don’t count how many cases I had, but in my opinion it’s something like forty.
He literally told me: “Do you want it to be like in Ukraine?”
The most difficult part of this activity is related to the psychological side, because it is quite difficult. Not only do you worry, especially when you’re just starting out, but you also have clients who worry much more than you - their lives are decided, because the fines that our judges issue, for example, 20 thousand, are really big money for many people, and I don’t understand how they can do this so easily.
It is very important to be stress-resistant, because the court is not the most pleasant place on the planet, there are much more pleasant places where you would like to be, but you end up in court. The judges are all very different. There are sessions with very neat and pleasant judges who will calmly conduct the process, but there are other people who, on the contrary, will try to interfere with you and your client, to confuse you. I have one unloved judge, to whom my clients very often end up, and he really puts a lot of pressure on me, saying: “Why did you come to this peaceful meeting?” He literally told me: “Do you want it to be like in Ukraine?” And this is not the only phrase thrown at him, there are many different phrases, like: “They shoot rubber bullets in your stronghold of democracy.” Maybe he is trying to intimidate my clients, I don’t understand. It is very important not to get lost in these moments. There are super-strange judges whose proceedings are conducted not according to the code of administrative offenses, but according to the civil procedural code or, suddenly, the criminal procedural code. This is quite strange, because it would seem that the judge should know everything, he took the exam, passed the qualification board of judges, but at some moments you think: “What is going on?” Once I was not allowed to act as a defense attorney in a motion because the judge argued that there was no such thing in the Code of Administrative Offences, and a power of attorney was needed. And the fact that the Supreme Court has a decision in which all this is spelled out did not bother her at all. Such processes are rather the exception, but this also happens.
Maybe there is something wrong with me, but every time I hope that when the judge reads the verdict, he is about to say that the decision of the court of first instance should be canceled and the complaint should be satisfied in full, but, unfortunately, this does not happen , and then you somehow feel sad, a depressed state sets in, when you begin to think that you did something wrong, said something wrong somewhere. Or you think: why did the judge decide this, why is this happening in our country, why are so many people being detained, and this is a huge stream of not the most pleasant thoughts, it envelops me, and I spend the whole evening in reflection.
I adore my fellow human rights activists: students, professional lawyers, lawyers. These are really cool and interesting people who deal with difficult cases, and now I’m not only talking about the courts under the Code of Administrative Offenses, but also, to a greater extent, probably, about the people who defend in criminal trials in case 212.
Before the internship at Memorial Human Rights Center and all these protest cases, I didn’t even know if I wanted to work as a lawyer, and I didn’t want to connect my life with jurisprudence, but now I realized that this is really a field where everyone can find something mine, and I found it. I really hope that I will continue to do this, help people and protect their rights.
I remembered the phrase Yegor Zhukov said at the trial: “I don’t know whether I will become free, but Russia will definitely become free.” This is a difficult question, because on the one hand, all states went through an authoritarian period. But, it seems to me, we should expect changes only when our government and mentality change. Because the majority of the population is happy with everything, and they don’t want to change anything. This notorious slogan about stability in society works for them. But I really hope that someday Russia will begin to respect human rights and comply with the Constitution. And I really hope that I will live in such a society.”
Subscribe to the DOXA newsletter
Every week we collect the best materials from our publication and colleagues and send them to you by email. Isn't it great?
Data sent successfully. Thank you!
By clicking on the “Subscribe!” button you consent
to process your personal data