Writer's Case

In the story of the Investigative Committee initiating a criminal case based on a blog entry by Arkady Babchenko, there are at least two important points.

The first concerns the identity of the author of the post. Arkady Babchenko, whom I have personally known since working at Novaya Gazeta, is a journalist and writer, and his second incarnation is more important in this case, since the reason for the criminal case was not an article in the media, but a post on his personal blog.

Arkady Babchenko went through two Chechen wars (the second as a volunteer), and he still experiences his military experience very hard - his books and many of his articles are about this. Both his books and articles are distinguished by painful sincerity and harsh, often extreme assessments: an approach characteristic of veterans of local conflicts. If we’re going to talk, don’t mince words. At the same time, nothing is known about Boris Yakemenko, on whose signal the Investigative Committee opened a criminal case, risking his life in the line of duty in the same way as Babchenko did.

The second important point is the alleged crime itself. Judging by the text of the letter from the Investigative Committee, the Investigative Committee noticed signs of a crime under Part 3 of Article 212 (“organizing mass riots”) in the post “A couple of thoughts about tactics in March,” where Babchenko suggests, among other things, not leaving protests, but stand there for an indefinite amount of time, following the Maidan model, preferably on Red Square, and find a snowplow “to break through the police cordon.” In addition, the post contains many complaints against the organizers of the actions, which, according to Babchenko, are not firm and consistent enough. Babchenko wrote all this on February 27, referring to the protests scheduled for March 5.

One can argue whether this post is a call for unrest, but the fact is that on March 5 no one followed Babchenko’s advice: the protesters did not dig in on Red Square, interfering with the passage of citizens, and Babchenko himself did not steal a snowplow and did not point it at a policeman cordon.

As far as can be understood from the Criminal Code, Part 3 of Article 212 (“Calls for mass riots..., or for participation in them, as well as calls for violence against citizens”) provides for up to two years in prison. Babchenko’s post, as we know, did not provoke any unrest or violence against citizens. Therefore, it is more than strange to punish him under this article.

If the Investigative Committee has reason to believe that Babchenko may call on his readers in the future, then law enforcement agencies have a special tool for this. The Prosecutor General's Office can send Arkady Babchenko a warning, which it regularly does before every protest, sending such warnings to the organizers.

In addition, in the summer of 2010, the FSB received the right to issue warnings “about the inadmissibility of actions that create conditions for the prevention of crimes.” Then President Medvedev explained the adoption of the relevant law by focusing on prevention. So let the FSB take care of prevention. And the Investigative Committee should investigate crimes that have already occurred, which obviously did not happen in Babchenko’s case.