Abstract victim

The hearing in the Moscow City Court on the “case of twelve,” separated from the “Bolotnaya case,” did not take place on July 3, because one of the defendants, Sergei Krivov, could not be brought to court. It turned out that on July 2 he was not brought to the hearing of the appeal to extend the accused’s period of detention in custody, but instead of the Moscow City Court, he was taken to the Zamoskvoretsky Court. The trial in the “case of twelve” is indeed formally considered by the Zamoskvoretsky Court, but takes place in the building of the Moscow City Court, since in Zamoskvoretsky there is no room suitable in size (however, in the Moscow City Court, in theory, they could choose a larger room - it’s cramped even for lawyers, of whom each defendant has two ). Meanwhile, Krivov, like the others, has been taken to meetings for several weeks now; they could have taught him already. But in the end, on July 3, they decided not to carry him at all! All this became possible because, unlike other defendants, Krivov is not in Butyrka, but in Matrosskaya Tishina.

As a result, the meeting was postponed to July 4. As expected, Krivov’s defender Sergei Mokhnatkin petitioned to change the preventive measure for his client. Judge Natalya Nikishina noted that the court had already entered the stage of considering evidence. But Mokhnatkin explained his petition by newly discovered circumstances (negligence of the convoy service). This motion was supported by all the accused and defense attorneys. Nikolai Kavkazsky's lawyer Vadim Klyuvgant noted that he was unable to give his client the documents he asked for - a copy of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Idalov v. Russia", in which conditions similar to those in which the current accused are being held are recognized as torture , and decisions of the Supreme Court, which, in accordance with the decision of the ECHR, canceled a number of provisions. As Klyuvgant said, the guard read the materials and refused to hand them over to the defendant, since, in his, the guard’s, opinion, the materials were not relevant to the case. Now in our court, the guards decide everything. The mother-in-law and defense attorney of Yaroslav Belousov, Alexandra Likhanova, stated that her client and son-in-law had returned to the pre-trial detention center from court only at midnight the day before (Belousov would later explain: because of the confusion with Krivov, they were all kept for eight hours, two at a time, in so-called “assemblies,” dirty, narrow rooms a meter by one and a half). The judge did not allow her to finish. As a result, the judge, after conferring with herself in the deliberation room for an hour (they promised that the break would last twenty minutes), denied Mokhnatkin’s request. He also petitioned to include in the case the decisions of the Zamoskvoretsky court refusing to involve him in the case as a defense lawyer - with the help of these documents he wanted to clarify that he did not have the opportunity to present his petitions at an earlier stage. And another petition concerned the involvement of acting as a witness. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin to find out whether he had any complaints against the participants of the rally on May 6 last year on Bolotnaya Square. These motions were not supported by all defendants and lawyers, and the judge rejected them. Krivov’s lawyer, Vyacheslav Makarov, noted that another lawyer for his client, who was appointed but did not appear at the hearings, was not removed from the process.

Prior to this, Alexandra Dukhanina petitioned to change her lawyer and to hire Granei.Ru correspondent Dmitry Borko as a defense lawyer. Both requests were granted. The appearance of Dmitry Borko among the defenders is rare good news in this trial. During the time that has passed since May 6 last year, Borko has collected a solid set of photo and video materials, many of which well explain what happened on Bolotnaya Square. The fact that he formally defends Dukhanina does not prevent him from talking about the circumstances concerning the other accused.

Nikolai Kavkazsky, who said he was experiencing pain in his spine, and Nikolai Belousov complained about the torture conditions. Alexey Polikhovich's lawyer, Zhan Semenov, asked the court to intervene in a situation where bailiffs are intercepting documents that the defense is trying to transfer to their clients. The judge refused requests to change the conditions, again recalling that the court had entered a new stage. It should be noted the constant disdainful tone when the judge addressed the accused and lawyers.

Another very unpleasant detail is conflicts with bailiffs. Before the judge returned to the courtroom to read the decision to deny Mokhnatkin’s petition, for some reason, contrary to custom, the bailiffs allowed media representatives into the courtroom before relatives. As a result, the door was closed before some relatives could enter. Denis Lutskevich’s mother stood in front of the bailiffs and cried, and they explained that they were not guilty - the judge ordered the door to be closed (one of them even added that he understood his relatives as a human being). But to admit that they were to blame for not letting their relatives into the hall on time - no, the bailiffs were not ready for that. As a result, after Nikishina read the decision, the relatives were allowed into the hall.

Krivov petitioned for a reference from his place of work to be included in the case, as well as a report on the results of an investigation into the events of May 6 by a public commission. At the same time, he began to read the text of the report, but the judge interrupted him, reminding him that at this stage only the prosecution could disclose evidence. Then she gave lawyer Vyacheslav Makarov an hour and a half to familiarize himself with the text. After a break, the prosecution stated that the document was not certified by the drafters, was not bound and did not have a seal. The judge refused to attach the report to the case and included a reference against Krivov.

Vladimir Akimenkov, who was going blind in custody, complained about the torture conditions, shouting down the judge. But then the court moved on to interrogating the victims.

On this day, the first of the 55 victims spoke - warrant officer of the OMON police department of the Internal Affairs Directorate for the Central Administrative District Andrei Arkhipov.

It should be said that this was a very revealing performance: the fact is that even in the case materials, Arkhipov is not listed as a victim as a result of the actions of any of the accused. He himself honestly confirmed this, telling the court how a stone hit him in the lower part of his chin (it slightly grazed him; there are no traces now), but he did not see who threw it. Arkhipov said that he does not feel victimized by the accused. Yaroslav Belousov’s lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky asked the most logical and natural question: “How is he then recognized as a victim - on someone else’s initiative or outside the framework of the law?” Judge Nikishina answered this brilliantly - perhaps this answer should be included in textbooks: “This is a rhetorical question!”

Arkhipov clearly spoke honestly, without inventing anything (doubts were raised only by the statement that he communicated with citizens in a civilized and polite manner: “They came up, introduced themselves, and asked to come with us”). He said that, from his point of view, there were mass riots at Bolotnaya, but he described them as follows: “rocks were flying, the employees were disobeying en masse.” He did not remember the person he detained, he did not remember who drew up the report on the detainee. According to him, riot police went to Bolotnaya to “protect” people “from themselves.” The judge removed the question that Arkhipov’s blood that day, according to the results of a medical study, contained alcohol. She also removed the question of whether Arkhipov was at the meeting with Putin in May 2012. Arkhipov admitted that he has dislike, but not for people, but for events. On Bolotnaya, after he was hit with a stone, he went to the ambulance, and in the evening he went to the hospital, where he received stitches.

After Arkhipov’s speech, who turned out to be a victim of unknown origin, Alexey Polikhovich filed a petition to change the status of a victim to the status of a witness. All the accused and lawyers supported the petition, the prosecution, of course, opposed it (Akimenkov shouted to the prosecutors: “Aren’t you ashamed to come out with such a base?”), but Arkhipov left the question to the discretion of the court. As a result, the court rejected the petition.

The next meeting will take place on July 9 at 11.30. It was good, more people came to the Moscow City Court. It is better to see what is happening with your own eyes.